Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 477 (BOM)

Shivaji Baburao Ghadage v. State of Maharashtra

2011-04-20

A.R.JOSHI

body2011
Judgment :- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority – Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karad, Sub Division Karad, District Satara, Dr Mrs Swati Deshmukh-Patil who passed the externment order. 3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 13th July, 2010 externing him from the territories of Districts Satara and Sangali for the period of one year. By the present writ petition the order of the Appellate Authority is also challenged. The order of the Appellate Authority was passed on 29th September, 2010. 4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition and the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Dr Mrs Swati DeshmukhPatil, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders. 5. Assistant Police Inspector, Umbraj Police Station submitted a proposal through Superintendent of Police, Satara vide letter dated 17th August, 2009 to the Externing Authority for initiating action under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 against the present petitioner, mainly alleging that the petitioner, being a bully operating in the localities of village Gorewadi within the jurisdiction of Umbraj Police Station and indulging in the offences of causing grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, rioting, etc. It is also alleged that due to illegal activities and atrocious acts of the petitioner, witnesses are not willing to come forward to complain against him apprehending danger to their person and property. In the proposal sent to the Externing Authority details were given as to criminal antecedents of the petitioner as to his involvement inasmuch as five criminal cases registered at Umbraj Police Station. There were in camera statements of eight witnesses recorded on 17th August, 2009 and witnesses narrated the instances about acts of the petitioner as to threats and criminal intimidation. On scrutiny of the proposal and the relevant material, directions were given to the S.D.P.O. Karad to hold inquiries to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Consequently, show cause notice dated 9th December, 2009 was issued against the petitioner. On scrutiny of the proposal and the relevant material, directions were given to the S.D.P.O. Karad to hold inquiries to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Consequently, show cause notice dated 9th December, 2009 was issued against the petitioner. In the said notice, copy of which is annexed to the present writ petition, it is specifically mentioned that it was issued under Section 57 (a) (1) of the Bombay Police Act. It was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karad Division, Karad. Details of the offences then pending against the present petitioner mentioned in the notice are as under:- Sr.No. Police Station C.R. & Sections Status 1. Umbraj Police 56 of 2006 under Sections 141, Pending in the Court Station 147, 148, 149, 324,504 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Umbraj Police 16 of 2009, under Section 435 Pending in the Court Station of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Umbraj Police 22 of 2009 under sections 436, Pending in the Court Station read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Umbraj Police 188 of 2009, under Sections Pending in the Court Station 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code 5. Umbraj Police 189 of 2009, under Sections Pending in the Court Station 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The petitioner made written representation by filing his submission dated 21.12.2009 mentioning therein that the offences lodged against him were pending before the concerned courts and that he had not been convicted in any of the matters. In his written submission he has explained that in fact his property including house, motor cycle and live stock were destroyed by certain miscreants from the said village including the person who then lodged complaints against the petitioner. The petitioner further mentioned in the said representation that he is ready to abide by any condition for keeping peace and maintaining law and order and further pleaded that the cases lodged against him were out of political rivalry. Said written submission is Annexure-B to the present writ petition and this Court has carefully gone through the contents of the same. 7. The externment order and the decision of the Appellate Court are challenged, mainly on the two grounds:- (i) Firstly, that notice under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act is not valid and legal. Said written submission is Annexure-B to the present writ petition and this Court has carefully gone through the contents of the same. 7. The externment order and the decision of the Appellate Court are challenged, mainly on the two grounds:- (i) Firstly, that notice under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act is not valid and legal. (ii) The externment order suffer from the vice of the excessive jurisdiction. 8. So far as the first argument is concerned, it is to be seen that section 57 of the Bombay Police Act contemplates removal of persons convicted of certain offences. In the present matter, admittedly, the offences lodged against the petitioner and detailed above are still pending and as such there cannot be application of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. On that count itself it must be said that there is non application of mind by the Externing Authority while taking shelter of the offences mentioned in the show cause notice and then issuing the notice under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. 9. So far as the second objection is concerned, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are registered with Umbraj Police Station, District Satara. However, he has been externed from the Districts of Satara as well as Sangli. There is nothing in the show cause notice that the activities of the petitioner are injurious to the people staying in any area of District Sangali. Moreover, there are no details of any in camera statements given in the show cause notice as the said position is clear after going through the contents of the said show cause notice which is annexed as Exhibit-A to the present petition. The ratios of various authorities are taken shelter of on behalf of the petitioner, on this second aspect of excessive jurisdiction. Said authorities are as under:- 1. MANU/MH/1065/2010, Sandip Devidas Thorat Vs. The Principal Secretary (Appeals and Hearing), Home Department, State of Maharashtra and the Sub Divisional Officer. 2. 2007 (5) MhLJ 436 , Sanjay Pandurang Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr 3. 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3036, Bharat s/o Dhondba Tarare vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer & others 4. 2006 (1) Mh.L.J.510, Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others 10. 2. 2007 (5) MhLJ 436 , Sanjay Pandurang Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr 3. 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3036, Bharat s/o Dhondba Tarare vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer & others 4. 2006 (1) Mh.L.J.510, Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others 10. After going through the ratios propounded by the above authorities, it is certain that excessive order is undoubtedly to be strucked down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Still it can be accepted that the larger area may conceivably have to be comprised within the externment order so as to isolate the externee from his moorings. However, for that purpose data is required. By way of above judicial pronouncements and as mentioned in Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others (cited supra) mere jeographical proximity is not ground to extend the order of externee to another district in which there are no objectionable activities of the externee. In that view of the matter, even on the second ground also the order of externment is required to be strucked down. Hence, order. ORDER. (i) Writ Petition No.3069 of 2010 is allowed. The impugned order of externment dated 13th July, 2010 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29th September, 2010 are quashed and set-aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. (ii) In view of disposal of the main writ Petition No. 3069 of 2010, nothing survives in Criminal Application No. 137 of 2011 which is for stay of the externment order. Hence, said application is accordingly disposed of.