Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4 (BOM)

Harshad Keshavlal Kothari v. State of Maharashtra

2009-01-05

S.S.SHINDE

body2009
Judgment: Oral Judgment: This application is filed by the applicant, challenging the order dated 9th March, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad by which the applicant was prevented from residing within the jurisdiction of Police Commissioner in Aurangabad City till 10th April, 2000 from the date of issuance of order on 9th March, 2000. The said order was issued under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is the case of the applicants that the City Channel Network has their own office at Sani Corner, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad. It is the case of the applicants that they have their own Control Room with ten disk-antennas fixed on the terrace. The City Channel Network have about five trunk lines throughout the city. It is the case of the applicants that it is their duty to see that the trunk lines are kept in proper position. It is the case of the applicants that the City Channel Network has about 150 local Cable Operators in the city of Aurangabad, who have their own Control Rooms in their areas. It is their case that the City Channel Network are transmitting several pay channels alongwith unpaid channels. It is the case of the applicants that the City Channel Network has to pay monthly subscription charges to the pay channels. They have to maintain their machinery, control room, cameras, disk-antennas, amplifiers, receivers, modulators, trunk lines, etc., therefore, they are required to recover subscription charges from their local cable operators who are working in the city of Aurangabad as "Aurangabad Cable Operators Association." 3. It is further case of the applicants that since December, 1999, a misunderstanding or a dispute about the subscription charges arose between the City Channel Network and their local cable operators and with a view to trouble the City Channel Network, the local cable operators, in league, started maligning the name of the City Channel Network by cutting, steeling their cables/wires and destroying their property by unlawful means. It is the case of the applicants that right from 16-12-1999 till the end of February, 2000, the City Channel Network have given several reports to the Police Station, Kranti Chowk, informing the activities of the local cable operators or their association, and requested for help/protection to their person as well as the property. It is the case of the applicants that right from 16-12-1999 till the end of February, 2000, the City Channel Network have given several reports to the Police Station, Kranti Chowk, informing the activities of the local cable operators or their association, and requested for help/protection to their person as well as the property. It is the case of the applicants that the City Channel Network has nothing to do with the local politics or the local elections, they are business persons. Their engineer is Mr. Harshad K. Kothari i.e. the applicant No. 1. It is the case of the applicants that on 9/3/2000 the impugned order was handed over to the applicant No. 1 and he was externed from the city of Aurangabad till the elections are over i.e. 10/4/2000. 4. The main contention of the applicants is that before passing the order dated 9th March, 2000 by the respondent No. 2 under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no opportunity was given to the applicant No. 1 to explain as to why he should not be externed. It is further case of the applicants that the impugned order is passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing and showing the documents and therefore, the same is bad in law and the same should be set aside. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed this application and submitted that this application may be rejected. 6. This Court heard this criminal application for admission on 23rd March, 2000 and issued rule and interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" and thereby stayed the order dated 9th March, 2000 issued by the respondent No.2. 7. I have perused the copy of the application thereof and heard the learned A.P.P. The order dated 9th March, 2000 was issued by respondent No. 2 under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, thereby externing the applicants from jurisdiction of Police Commissioner, Aurangabad City till 10th April, 2000. Since this order dated 9th March, 2000 was stayed by this Court, the period mentioned in the order dated 9th March, 2000 i.e. till 10th of April, 2000 is already expired. In my considered view, no fruitful purpose will be served by sustaining the order dated 9th March, 2000. 8. Since this order dated 9th March, 2000 was stayed by this Court, the period mentioned in the order dated 9th March, 2000 i.e. till 10th of April, 2000 is already expired. In my considered view, no fruitful purpose will be served by sustaining the order dated 9th March, 2000. 8. The applicant has made out the case and demonstrated that the order dated 9th March, 2000 under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent No. 2 was in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice, no opportunity was given to the applicants to explain their case. Therefore, in my considered view, the externment order passed by the respondent No. 2 was without following any procedure, the said order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. 9. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". Rule is made absolute. The application is disposed of.