B.C.GADGIL, J. - (1.)The petitioner against whom an order under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act has been passed has filed this petition challenging the legality, validity and correctness of that order.
(2.)The petitioner is a resident of village Sitane in Malegaon Tehsil. He is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat for about three years and is also the Chairman of the Milk Producing Society. On 16-1-1982, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon, issued a notice to the petitioner under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act informing the petitioner that the said Sub-Divisional Police Officer had been authorised by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to hold an inquiry and that in accordance therewith the notice had been issued. The notice further states that an action is intended to be taken for externment of the petitioner from Nasik, Dhule, Jalgaon and Ahmednagar Districts on account of certain averments and allegations mentioned in the accompaniment to the notice. The said accompaniment states that three cases were pending against the petitioner in the Court, while three cases were pending with the police for investigation. It also states that in spite of these criminal matters, petitioner did not improve his conduct and behaviour and as such three chapter cases have been initiated against him. It is then averred that the petitioner has ben committing offences in spite of the fact that he has been convicted previously. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and filed his written reply stating therein that he has been acquitted in the three criminal cases which were pending before the Magistrate and that the chapter cases mentioned in the notice have been dropped. As far as the criminal cases pending investigation are concerned, he has alleged that those cases are false and that he hopes to get an acquittal. In the reply, the petitioner, further alleged that he would like to cross-examine the witnesses that would be examined against him and also intend to lead evidence of certain witnesses. The record of the said inquiry has not been made available to us at the time of the hearing of this petition, though Shri Kamble for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has taken time for this purpose. Shri Agrawal has mad a statement that after the above written reply was filed, the petitioner examined nine witnesses and that no one was examined against him by the other side.
(3.)These inquiry papers were sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On 15-7-1982, he has issued the notice (page 35) again stating therein about the pendency of three criminal cases in the Court and two criminal cases at the investigation stage. The notice called upon the petitioner to appear and to put in his say as to why he should not be externed. The petitioner filed his reply (page 36). Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed an order (Page 23) dated 31-1-1983 externing the petitioner from Nasik District for a period of one year. It is this order that is being challenged before us.