DNYANESHWER MADHAV MALVE Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-215
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 01,2017

Dnyaneshwer Madhav Malve Appellant
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S. Shinde, J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
(2.) At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner makes oral prayer to correct designation of respondent No.3 in the cause title of the memo of petition. The prayer is granted. The amendment be carried out forthwith.
(3.) This petition takes an exception to the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Externment Appeal No.24 of 2017, thereby confirming the order passed by respondent No.3. It is not necessary to make reference to the facts in greater length stated in the petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner assailed the order passed by respondent No.3 which is confirmed by respondent No.1 principally on two grounds. Firstly, the order is excessive in as much as though the alleged offences which are mentioned in the showcause notice issued by respondent No.3 are registered at Kopargaon Police Station, however, the petitioner is externed from the boundaries of Kopargaon, Rahata, Shrirampur, Sangamner Talukas (Tahsil) of Ahmednagar District; Yeola, Sinnar and Niphad Talukas of Nashik District and Vaijapur Taluka of Aurangabad District. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not assigned any reasons in the impugned order why the externment of the petitioner is necessary from aforementioned Talukas of Nashik and Aurangabad Districts. He further submits that since the order passed by respondent No.3 is taking recourse to the provisions of section 56(1)(a)(b), of the Maharashtra Police Act [for short "the said Act"]; there is no compliance of mandate of section 56 (1)(b) of the Act, in as much as, though there is reference to the statement of witnesses recorded in camera by respondent No.2, respondent No.3, did not form opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. It is submitted that when the SubDivisional Magistrate is empowered to deal with the proceedings under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, said Officer is supposed to apply his mind to the material before him and in particular the statements of witnesses, so as to form opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the proposed externee in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon grounds taken in the petition and annexures thereto, submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.