IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1578 OF 2021 Mayur Vasant Sonawane, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Labour, adult, Indian Inhabitant, Having address at Takle Nagar, Ganeshwadi Panchvati, Nashik, District-Nashik.

Presently residing out of Nashik due to externment order. …. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, &

2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, K-Zone, Nashik. … Respondents .…

Mr. Prashant Aher, Advocate i/b. Prashant Gavai, for the Petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Godbole, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.

Smt. A.S. Pai, Public Prosecutor a/w. K.V. Saste, APP, for the State.

....

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, PRAKASH D. NAIK, &

SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 25th MARCH, 2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 21st APRIL, 2022 Deshmane(PS)

JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]

1. Pursuant to the reference made by a Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) vide order dated

17.12.2021, we are called upon to decide the following two issues:

(i) Whether the power under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature; and (ii) Whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Section 60 of the Act of 1951.

The Act referred to in these issues is the ‘Maharashtra Police Act, 1951’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1951’).

2. The Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V.

Kotwal, JJ.) who heard this Writ Petition did not agree with the view of another Division Bench (Coram: R.M. Borde & A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.)

expressed in the case of Suraj Balbhim Shelke Vs. State of Maharashtra & others¹, and therefore referred these questions to be decided by a Larger Bench.

1 2016(4) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 273 Background of Reference :

3. Necessity to decide these issues arose because, depending on whether the order passed under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial or not; the matters challenging the order passed under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 could be decided by a Single Judge or a Division Bench. Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 describes the Single Judge’s power to finally dispose of the applications under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In particular, the explanation given under the said Rule is important. The order passed under the Act of 1951 is mentioned at Sr. No.23 under that Rule. The relevant contents of the said Rule are as follows :

“ CHAPTER XVII PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 AND APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND RULES FOR THE ISSUE OF WRITS AND ORDERS UNDER THE SAID ARTICLES

18. Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applications under Article 226 or 227.— Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1,4 and 17 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution (or applications styled as applications under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution) arising out of—

(1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (23) The orders passed under the Bombay Police Act, 1951;

xxxxxx xxxxxx (46) xxxxx may be heard and finally disposed of by a Single Judge appointed in this behalf by the Chief Justice:

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Explanation – The expression “order”

appearing in clauses (1) to (46) means any order passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the abovementioned statutes.”

4. Thus, depending on whether the order under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 is passed by a quasi judicial authority or an administrative authority, the matter would lie before a Single Judge or a Division Bench. The judgment in Suraj’s case itself was passed on a reference made to that Division Bench for deciding the issue as to whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 60 of the Act of 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act of 1951 can be construed as an ‘order’ within the contemplation of expla