PRAKASH SITARAM SHELAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five petitions involve common questions of law and similar questions of fact and are being disposed of by this single judgment. The petitioner in each one of these petitions was served with a notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, informing him that it was proposed to extern him from Thane and Bombay Districts for a period of two years on the grounds mentioned in the said notice. In the first place, each one of the petitioners was informed that he was indulging in criminal actions within the jurisdiction of the Wagle Estate Police station by forming a gang of unsocial elements. He was also told that he was indulging in beating without any reason the poor leper patients in the area. Each petitioner was also told that he was, along with others, causing loss to the properties of the people. After narrating the said facts, it was stated that people are unwilling the come forward to give evidence against him, being afraid of danger to their lives and properties. Thereafter, each one of them was told that a case was registered against him for the offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian panel Code. Having said this, however, the notice did not mention that in respect of the case registered against each of the petitioners, witnesses were not willing to depose against him.

(2.) THE notice, in our opinion, contains several defects. In the first place, the petitioner in each of the petitions was not informed the period during which he was indulging in anti-social activities. On an allegation that the petitioners have been indulging in anti-social activities without mentioning the period during which those activities took place, no person can reasonably put up a defence. If the activities had happened 10 years ago, he could easily persuade the authorities to the effect that there has been a lull in those activities on his part and no order of externment is called for. We are also of the opinion that the allegations of beating people, causing loss to the people's properties are somewhat vague.

(3.) THAT apart, that failure in the notice to mention that in respect the allegation covered by the latter part of Clause (b) of S. 56 (1) of the Bombay Police Act that the witnesses are not willing to come forward is, in our opinion, fatal to the validity of the notice. It has been so held us in yeshwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare and another Criminal Writ Petition No. 324 of 1989, decided on 29th of August 1989 : (1990) 1 Mah LR 483.