SIRAJKHAN S O HAYATKHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chawda, learned A. P. P. for the State.

(2.) THE present criminal writ petition is directed against the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amravati, vide order dated 3-4-1998 whereby under section 56 (1) (2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the applicant was externed for a period of one year from the Amravati District.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case, respondent No. 2 issued notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act on 31-12-1996. It is further contended that the necessary enquiry was conducted by the respondent and thereafter respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order dated 3-4-1998 by which the petitioner is externed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the grounds mentioned in the above referred show cause notice are stale and old and, therefore, the impugned order which is based on such grounds is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that though the alleged activities of the petitioner were located in some of the areas of city of Amravati, the petitioner came to be externed from the entire District of Amravati which, according to the learned Counsel, is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that the criminal cases shown and described in the show cause notice and relied on by the Externment Authority, while passing the impugned order, are not only old but the petitioner is also acquitted in most of these criminal cases. It is also contended that in the show cause notice, no details are mentioned such as time, place and month in respect of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that in the absence of such details, the petitioner could not defend himself properly before the authorities concerned. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.