R.M. Borde, J.

The question that is referred for our consideration is, as to “whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under section 56 and 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be construed as an ‘order’ within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960”.

2. In view of explanation to Rule 18 of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the expression ‘order’, appearing in clauses 1 to 41 means an order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the above mentioned statute. Thus, it is essentially required to examine as to whether the order passed in an appeal by the State Government under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is an order passed under quasi-judicial authority or whether it shall be construed as an administrative order.

3. An order directing externment out of Ahmednagar district is issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar, directing removal of petitioner from Ahmednagar district for a period of one year, in exercise of powers conferred under section 56(1)(A) (B) and subsection (2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on 21.7.2014. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the State Government under section 60 of the Act has been dismissed on 9.4.2015. The petitioner raised challenge to aforesaid adverse orders in the instant petition. When the petition was placed before learned Vacation Judge for consideration, the office raised an objection in respect of failure of the petitioner to file second set, since according to the Office, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.2265 of 2007 (reported in 2008 All M.R. Cr.2701) and also considering the observations made by the learned single Judge in Criminal Writ Petition No.560/2015, the criminal Writ petition is entertain able by the Division Bench. Learned Vacation Judge did not agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge dealing with Cr. Writ Petition No.560/2015 and by order dated 6.5.2015 directed the Registry to place the matter before the Senior Most Judge at the bench, for issuance of proper directions. According to the learned Vacation Judge, the challenge in the matter of Manjeet Singh v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2008 All M.R. pager 2701) raised before the division bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2265/07 was in respect of an order passed by the externing authority, in exercise of powers conferred under section 57(1)(A) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing externment of the petitioner therein. The petitioner, in the above referred matter, did not avail of the remedy of appeal to the State Government and the Writ petition was entertained by the Division Bench, in exercise of powers under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned single Judge, in the instant matter, since the order under challenge is the one passed under section 60 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 by the Appellate Authority i.e. State Government, in view of sub-clause 22 of Rule 18(1) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the single Judge is empowered to finally dispose of the application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Sub-clause 22 refers to order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Learned single Judge therefore is of the view that, the decision rendered by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, being a quasi-judicial order, i.e. an ‘order’ within the meaning of explanation to rule 18 (2) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the single Judge is invested with the powers to deal with the petition.

4. The learned single Judge of co-ordinate bench, in identi