SAYYED JAFAR SAYYED NASIR Vs. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir
The Divisional Commissioner
Click here to view full judgement.
Vasanti.A.Naik, J. -
(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati City, Amravati dt.23.6.2016 externing the petitioner from Amravati City and Amravati Rural area for a period of two years.
(3.) Mr.J.B.Kasat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside, as in the notice served on the petitioner u/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has not mentioned about the incamera statements of the two witnesses. It is submitted that though a passing reference is made in the notice u/s.59 that the incamera statements of two witnesses were recorded by giving assurance to them in regard to the nondisclosure of their identity, what was said by these witnesses is not mentioned in the show cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner could not effectively give the reply to the show cause notice in the absence of any material about the incamera statements of the two witnesses. It is stated that though the statements of witnesses are not mentioned in the show cause notice, they are relied on by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, while passing the order externing the petitioner from Amravati City and rural areas. It is submitted that since the Authority has committed a serious flaw while deciding the proposal for the externment of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.