Important Point – While discussing in respect of each crime registered against the petitioner and his members of gang everywhere the petitioner is referred as head of the gang and other five persons are referred as members of the said gang.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“(B) Quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 113/2016 and judgment and order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Ld. Externment Tribunal/Ld. Superintendent of Police, Beed in File bearing No. LCB:01/MPA Sec. 55/2006/16 and for that purpose issue necessary order.”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, none of the offences mentioned in the show-cause notice, can be said to be under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, the petitioner is Councillor of Beed Municipal Council for 10 years and is a respectable person in the society. 31 Offences shown registered against the petitioner are punishable under Section 12A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, which is bailable offence. In respect of offence bearing C.R. No. 12/2016 registered with Police Station, Beed (City) under Sections 395, 504 and 506 of the I.P. Code, it is submitted that, the complainant therein himself has given the affidavit and on the basis of the said affidavit, the petitioner is enlarged on bail and now the investigation of the said crime is in progress. It is submitted that, the offences registered against the petitioner are with an ulterior motive and in some of the alleged offences, the petitioner is already acquitted. Respondent No. 2 has initiated the externment proceedings out of vengeance, since in the month of January-February, 2016 one Police Constable was trapped by the Anti Corruption Department on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner and other three persons. The said externment proceedings have been initiated so as to take revenge of said incident. It is submitted that, there are dependents upon the petitioner and he is the only bread earner of his family. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition may be allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the reported judgments in the cases of Vijay Lalso Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2014 All MR (Cri) 1277, Shri Rajwardhan Babaso Patil vs. Shri Vijaysinha Jadhav and Another, 2015 All MR (Cri) 2936 and also Umar Mohammed Maibari vs. K.P. Gaikwad and Another, 1988 (2) Bom. C.R. 724.

4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State, relying upon the reasons assigned by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, submits that, after considering the documents, the order of externment has been passed by Respondent No. 2. The authorities have given cogent and convincing reasons in the impugned orders. It is submitted that, more than 31 offences are pending against the petitioner. He is involved in illegal activities, and therefore, his externment was warranted and accordingly, the impugned order is passed by Respondent no. 2. It is submitted that, while passing the impugned order, the mandate of provisions of the Bombay Police Act, and also the procedure contemplated therein, has been followed and thereafter, only an order of externment has been passed by respondent no. 2.

5. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent- State. With their able assistance, we have perused the original record of the case and also the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto and the reasons assigned by the authorities while passing the impugned orders.

6. Upon careful perusal of the record in relation to the case in hand maintained by the respondents, it appears that, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the month of March, 2016 is keeping in view the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 195