Bombay High Court
Milind Alias Pintu Madhukarrao ... vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ... on 2 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13425
Judgment wp974.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 974/2025.
Milind @ Pintu s/o Madhukarrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 51 years, Occupation - Private,
resident of Near School No.1, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2.Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Katol, District Nagpur.
3.Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur.
4.Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Katol, Tahsil Katol,
District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. A.Z. Mirza, Advocate h/f. Mr.S.P. Sonwane, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondents.
----------------------------------
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
2
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katol and also the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur by which the petitioner came to be externed from Nagpur District for a period of two months.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an enquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) was conducted by the Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25 3 Sub Divisional Police Officer, Katol Division, Katol, however, there is no reference of any in-camera statements in the said notice. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 refers to the in-camera statements recorded by the Sponsoring Authority. He therefore, submits that on this sole ground the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently submits that admittedly in-camera statements were recorded and it discloses that the conduct of the petitioner is harmful to the society. He refers to the statements at "A" and "B". He further submit that considering the criminal history of the petitioner, a detail order was passed, as 4 crimes are registered against him. Not only that, preventive action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 126 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was taken, however, as the same did not serve any fruitful purpose, therefore, last resort was adopted by externing the petitioner. Considering the entire material placed on Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25 4 record, the order of externment was passed by the respondent no.2. He further submits that the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur has also confirmed the order by considering the entire material.
6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that notices under Section 59 of the Act were issued on 04.10.2025 and 09.10.2025, however, it does not refer to any in- camera statements. It appears from the record that the Sponsoring Authority has recorded in-camera statements along with the proposal, which was referred to the Sub Divisional Police Officer for verification of those statements.
7. Section 59 of the Act, speaks about hearing to be given before passing order of externment under Sections 55, 56, 57 or 57-A of the Act. It specifically provides that before submitting the report to the Externing Authority, it is a duty of the officer who has conducted the enquiry under Section 59 of the Act, to inform the person in writing the general nature of material allegations against him and given him reasonable opportunity to tender explanation to the Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25 5 allegations referred in the notice under Section 59.
8. Perusal of both the notices i.e. dated 04.10.2025 and 09.10.2025, reveals that it does not disclose even recording of any in- camera statements, when Section 59 mandates that what ever allegations are leveled against the petitioner, a gist to that effect is required to be reflected in the notice. Section 59 is the soul of the entire externment proceeding. If the gist of material allegations is not mentioned, then it would result in violation of principles of natural justice. In other way it can be said that the petitioner was deprived from tendering explanation against the allegations which are made in the notice under Section 59 of the Act. Violation of aforesaid parameters would amount to vitiating the entire proceeding. Even the learned Divisional Commissioner has failed to take into this aspect, and therefore, committed a gross error to that effect.
9. In this view of the matter, admittedly the notice does not contain any reference of recording of in-camera statements. Thus, Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25 6 considering this fact, the petition succeeds and hence the following order.
ORDER (1) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The order passed by the respondent no.2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katol dated 10.11.2025, so also the order passed by the respondent no.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated 20.11.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. (3) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/12/2025 16:12:48