RAJKISHORE SHIVSHANKAR TIWARI Vs. MAKRAND RANADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on earlier date. The challenge in this petition is to the order of externment passed under section 56 (1) (a), (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). A show cause notice was issued on 26th july, 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the petitioner. The order of externment was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of police on 23rd september, 2008. By the order of externment, the petitioner has been ordered to be externed for a period of one year from the area falling within the jurisdiction of Commissionerate of Police of Greater Bombay and the revenue district of thane for a period of one year. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. The first submission is as regards the breach of principles of natural justice. His submission is that in the show cause notice reliance was placed on the in-camera statement of witness 'b' without disclosing the area and locality where the incident described by the witness took place and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to give effective reply to the show cause notice. He placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of abdul Kadir Razzaque Beg vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nasik and others, 1991 1 MhLJ 474. He also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single judge of this Court in case of lqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi vs. The State of Maharashtra and others,1999 1 BLR 631. He has also placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court dated 11th October, 2000 delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1414 of 2000 in support of the aforesaid contention.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions. For dealing with the first contention it will be necessary to refer to the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, reliance has been placed on in-camera statement of witness 'b'. In his in-camera statement dated 17th July, 2008 the witness stated that he was running the shop in the area in which he is residing and therefore, he knows the persons staying in the locality. He stated that in the area in which he was residing is Rathodigaon. The petitioner is known as anti-social element against whom offences have been registered and he moves in his area along with his associates and always carries dangerous weapons with him. He described the activities of the petitioner. Thereafter, a specific incident narrated by the witness 'b' has been noted. According to the witness in the third week of February, 2008 at about 6. 00 p. m. , he was busy in his business. At that time, the petitioner along with his two associates came to his grocery shop and demanded certain grocery items. When the witness supplied grocery items and issued a bill, incident complained of had taken place. The witness stated that he was running the shop in the area in which he is residing. Later on, he described that he was residing in the area of Rathodi village where petitioner is staying. In the description of incident of February, 2008, there is a reference to his shop. It is set out in the show cause notice that the said shop is in Rathodigaon area. It is set out that the incident complained of had taken place at 6. 00 p. m in the third week of February, 2008. Reading the show cause notice as a whole, it is obvious that it refers to the locality of rathodigaon where witness 'b' was residing and was carrying on his business. In the circumstances, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same will have to be rejected.