SATISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

(2.) All the five proceedings are filed against the common order bearing No. 1236/DCRB/Externment-3/19 dated 11.4.2019 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Parbhani (acting as S.D.M.). The order is passed under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The order of externment is of six months as against petitioners of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1356 to 1358 of 2019 and it is of the period of one year as against the petitioners of the remaining two petitions. The externment order is in respect of four Tahsils of Parbhbani district like Gangakhed, Palam, Sonpeth and Parbhani. The externment order is also in respect of two Tahsils of district Beed like Ambajogai and Parli and it is in respect of one Tahsil of Latur like Ahmedpur. This order is confirmed by the appellate authority, Divisional Revenue Commissioner, Aurangabad by order dated 5.7.2019.

(3.) The show cause notice under section 59 of the Act was issued on 17.1.2019. In the show cause notice, it was informed to the petitioners that there was proposal of Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani of externment of two years from four districts like Parbhani, Hingoli, Latur and Nanded. It was informed that the petitioners were members of a gang as per the contentions of police and this gang was headed by Hari alias Haridas Limbaji Ghobale. It was informed that there was the allegation that the petitioners were in the habit of committing offences involving violence, harm to persons and properties of others and they were involved in the offences of molestation of ladies, in gambling activity and there were many cases for such offences filed against them. It was informed that as per the contention of police, their activities had created danger to the life and property of the people of that locality and people were feeling insecure due to their activities. It was also contended that the people were not coming forward to give evidence due to apprehension created by the petitioners.