GAHININATH JAGANNATH SHIRSATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
GAHININATH JAGANNATH SHIRSATH
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Petition is filed with following prayer :
B. That, by issuing appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the order passed by the Respondent No.3 Ld. Divisional Commissioner Nasik Division, Nasik in Externment Appeal No.51/2016 dated 21.11.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Pathardi and reputed person in the society. He further submits that, the mandate of provisions of Section 56  [a] and [b] of the Maharashtra Police Act [in short 'the said Act'] and also procedure prescribed under Section 59 of the said Act has not been followed by respondent no.2 while passing the order thereby externing the petitioner from three Districts. It is submitted that, when the alleged offences stated against the petitioner are registered at Pathardi Police Station in Ahmednagar District, there was no reason for respondent no.2 to extern the petitioner from the boundaries of Beed and Aurangabad Districts. Since the order passed by respondent no.2 is excessive, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the various judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2013  Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 566, Umar Mohammed Malbari v. K.P. Gaikwad and another, 1988  Bom.C.R. 724, Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and another, AIR 1969 Bombay 351, Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare v. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others, 2006  Mh.L.J. 510, Namdeo Laxman Charde v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katol and another, 1996  Mh.L.J. 483, Kashinath @ Kashya Sitaram Keluskar v. The Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2000 All MR [Cri.] 801, in the case of Aakash Anil Tambe v. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.500/2014 decided on 08.08.2014 and in the case of Sajid s/o. Mahemood Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 521/2014 decided on 26.08.2014. He further submits that, one of the crimes mentioned in the proposal submitted by the Police Authority to respondent no.2 was registered in the year 2002, wherein there was fullfledged trial. It is submitted that, though the affidavits of the various persons were filed on record, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner is a reputed person in the society and he is not indulged in the criminal activities as alleged, have not been taken consideration by respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that, the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 19  [d] and 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Being the President of APMC, Pathardi, he has to look after the day to day affairs of APMC, Pathardi, therefore his stay at Pathardi is necessary. It is submitted that, since the petitioner's wife is the member of Zilla Parishad, on account of grudge developed by the political leaders from the opposite party, the externment order is passed by the respondent no.2. There is no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner in First Information Reports/Crimes registered against the petitioner. Those offences are registered out of malice.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.