Advocates:
['MIR NAGMAN ALI', '', 'SHAHRUKH AHEMAD AAGAMIYA SHAH', 'APP']

Judgment

wp413.22

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 413/2022.

Majid Khan @ Majju Haimd Khan,

Aged about 34 years, Occupation-

Labour, resident of Plot No.2,

Gausiya Colony, Near Visbaba

Dargah, Bada Tajbagh,

PS Sakkardara, Nagpur.

... PETITIONER.

VERSUS

1.State of Maharashtra,

through Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Zone 4, Nagpur City, District Nagpur.

2.Divisional Commissioner,

Nagpur Divison, Nagpur.

... RESPONDENTS.

-----------------------

Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms.M.H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondents.

------------------------

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON

:

10.08.2022.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :

29.08.2022.

Rgd.

Judgment

wp413.22

2

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties. By their consent,

Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making

the same returnable forthwith.

2.

By the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 passed by

respondent no.1 – Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur

City, Nagpur the petitioner has been externed from Nagpur District

for a period of two years in terms of Section 56[1][bb] of the

Maharashtra Police Act (the Police Act). Appeal against the said

order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur

Division, Nagpur vide order dated 16.06.2022.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has

assailed the impugned orders by stating it to be unreasonable, as it

has no nexus or live link with the requisite apprehension nurtured by

the externing authority. According to the learned Counsel, the

Rgd.

Judgment

wp413.22

3

action in terms of Section 56[1][bb] of the Police Act cannot be

based on the offences which does not fall within the ambit of Clause

[iv] of Section 2[a] of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal,

Anti-social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 (1980 Act). It is

submitted that the later part of Clause [iv] requires satisfaction of

the Authority that the commission of such offence disturbs or is likely

to disturb public order, which is lacking. The impugned order is

also assailed on the ground that the Authority has not recorded

subjective satisfaction for externing the petitioner for a maximum

period provided in terms of Section 58 of the Police Act. Lastly, it is

contended that if some of the considerations are irrelevant, then also

the entire action would vitiate, as it is difficult to decide as to at

what extent the irrelevant remarks have weighed the externing

authority.

4.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of

respondents – State has straneously opposed the petition by

submitting that there are in all 7 offences registered against the

petitioner, besides two prohibitory orders. Those criminal cases are

Rgd.

Judgment

wp413.22

4

pending adjudication before different Criminal Courts, and most of

the cases pertain to the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner is habitual drug

peddler who supplies ganja in the area of the activity, which affects

large part of the society. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the

Authorities have followed due procedure. The petitioner did not

respond to the show cause notice, which required the authority to re-

issue the notice, hence, the time consumed for taking appropriate

action is justifiable. On these grounds, the impugned order is urged

to be maintained in the larger interest of the society.

5.

By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in case of

Aamna Bi Sheikh Pir Mohd Sheikh .vrs. State of Maharashtra and

another – 2019 All MR (Cri) 3193, it has been submitted that Section

2[a][iv] of the 1980 Act provides that there should be more than one

offence committed by the proposed externee for which maximum

punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life or

imprisonment for term exceeding 7 years or m