Bombay High Court
Dayanand @ Bhurya Rukhmaji Ghobale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 October, 2019
Author: T.V. Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2019
Satish s/o. Limbaji Ghobale,
Age 39 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Present
R/o. Khadgaon Road,
Prakash Nagar, Latur. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2019
Shubham @ Dada s/o. Dayayand Ghobale,
Age 22 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Present
R/o. Khadgaon Road,
Prakash Nagar, Latur. ....Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
2
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2019
Govind @ Jaypal s/o. Limbaji Ghobale,
Age 38 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Present
R/o. Khadgaon Road,
Prakash Nagar, Latur. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
3
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2019
Raosaheb s/o.Dnyanoba Nagargoje,
Age 49 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Tokwadi, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Present
R/o. Pangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2019
Dayanand @ Bhurya Rukhmaji Ghobale,
Age 45 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Present
R/o. Pangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
4
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Sub Division, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
Mr. E.P. Sawant h/f. Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. R.D. Sanap, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 04/10/2019.
JUDGMENT :[PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) All the five proceedings are filed against the common order bearing No. 1236/DCRB/Externment-3/19 dated 11.4.2019 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Parbhani (acting as S.D.M.). The order is passed under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
5order of externment is of six months as against petitioners of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1356 to 1358 of 2019 and it is of the period of one year as against the petitioners of the remaining two petitions. The externment order is in respect of four Tahsils of Parbhbani district like Gangakhed, Palam, Sonpeth and Parbhani. The externment order is also in respect of two Tahsils of district Beed like Ambajogai and Parli and it is in respect of one Tahsil of Latur like Ahmedpur. This order is confirmed by the appellate authority, Divisional Revenue Commissioner, Aurangabad by order dated 5.7.2019.
3) The show cause notice under section 59 of the Act was issued on 17.1.2019. In the show cause notice, it was informed to the petitioners that there was proposal of Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani of externment of two years from four districts like Parbhani, Hingoli, Latur and Nanded. It was informed that the petitioners were members of a gang as per the contentions of police and this gang was headed by Hari alias Haridas Limbaji Ghobale. It was informed that there was the allegation that the petitioners were in the habit of committing offences involving violence, harm to persons and properties of others and they were involved in the offences of molestation of ladies, in gambling activity and there were many cases for such offences filed against them. It was informed ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
6that as per the contention of police, their activities had created danger to the life and property of the people of that locality and people were feeling insecure due to their activities. It was also contended that the people were not coming forward to give evidence due to apprehension created by the petitioners.
4) In the show cause notice, list of 31 crimes registered against all the members together was given. Separate list of the cases which was filed only as against Hari Ghobale was given and in respect of each petitioner separate list of offences registered was given.
5) As against petitioner from first petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1356/2019, Satish, three crimes were registered, which were as under :-
v- iksyhl zxq-j- ua- dye ,dq.k ?kVuk rkjh[k dksVZ dsl l/;kfLFkrh dz- LVs'ku vkjksih dzekad 1- xaxk[ksM 268@14 394 Hkk-na-fo- 4 16@11@14 284@14 vkilkr rMtksM 18@12@14 >kY;kus funksZ"k 2- xaxk[ksM 321@17 324]504]506]34 Hkk- 4 05@08@17 ,ulh,Q & na-fo- 55@17 29@12@17 3- xaxk[ksM 63@18 307] 324] 323] 14 13@03@18 ,l-ih-dz - U;k;izfo"B 504] 506] 143] 03@18 147] 148] 149 Hkk- 06@07@18 na-fo- o lg dye 3¼1½¼vkj½¼,l½] 3 ¼2½ ¼Ogh½ vtktvizdk ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.7
In the first case filed as against Satish, there was acquittal on the date of consideration of the matter. The extract of the allegations mentioned in the order shows that the complainant and all the witnesses of the three crimes knew Satish from prior to the date of offence. The aforesaid chart shows that no case was filed in second crime. In the third crime, there was allegation that the incident took place due to old political rivalry and the political rivalry was in respect of the elections to Municipality of Gangakhed. It was also informed that chapter case was filed against Satish in the year 2018, though it was disposed of without asking Satish to execute the bond.
The submissions made and the record show that Satish is the real brother of so called leader Hari. Only in one case mentioned above of the year 2018 Satish was co-accused along with Hari, but that case involved political dispute. It was informed in show cause notice that inquiry was made with two confidential witnesses and they had contended that Satish was in the habit of committing offence of extortion etc. In any case, no specific instance in that regard is given and no such crime was registered against Satish. In addition to that, Satish had not suffered any conviction till that date.
6) To the petitioner from Criminal Writ Petition No. 1357/2019, Shubham, it was informed that five crimes were registered against him which were as under :-::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
8
v- iksyhl zxq-j- ua- dye ,dq.k ?kVuk rkjh[k dksVZ dsl l/;kfLFkrh
dz- LVs'ku vkjksih dzekad
1- xaxk[ksM 261@13 341] 323] 34 Hkk- 3 01@10@13 43@14 U;k;izfo"B
na-fo- 18@02@14
2- xaxk[ksM vn[kyik= 323] 504] 506] 04 29@12@16 & &
xqUgk 427] 34 Hkk-na-fo-
461@16
3- xaxk[ksM vn[kyik= 323] 504] 506] 02 12@03@17 & dye 149
xqUgk 34 Hkk-na-fo- lhvkihlh uksVhl
74@17
4- xaxk[ksM 121@17 324] 323] 504] 04 26@03@17 98@17 U;k;izfo"B
506] 34 Hkk-na-fo- 21@09@17
3- xaxk[ksM 63@18 307] 324] 323] 14 13@03@18 ,l-ih-dz - U;k;izfo"B
504] 506] 143] 03@18
147] 148] 149 Hkk- 06@07@18
na-fo- o lg dye
3¼1½¼vkj½¼,l½] 3
¼2½ ¼Ogh½
vtktvizdk
In this show cause notice, the particulars of the aforesaid crimes were given. Crime No. 261/2013 was registered on the basis of report given by the person from his Bhavki. In second crime, no case was filed. The last case is of the year 2018 and as already mentioned, it has arisen out of political rivalry. Similarly, Crime No. 121/2017 was registered in respect of the incident which had taken place due to previous dispute. There was no case of molestation of any woman against him, but such allegations were made in the show cause notice. Thus, in one matter like Crime No. 63/2018 he was co-
accused in case filed against Hari and others. The statements of so called confidential witnesses are similar in nature. Shubham had also ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.9
not suffered any conviction till the date of notice.
7) To Govind, the petitioner from Criminal Writ Petition No. 1358/2019, list of two crimes was given, as under :-
v- iksyhl zxq-j- ua- dye ,dq.k ?kVuk rkjh[k dksVZ dsl l/;kfLFkrh dz- LVs'ku vkjksih dzekad 1- xaxk[ksM 268@14 394 Hkk-na-fo- 4 16@11@14 284@14 vkilkr rMtksM 18@12@14 >kY;kus funksZ"k 2- xaxk[ksM 63@18 307] 324] 323] 14 13@03@18 -03@18 U;k;izfo"B 504] 506] 143] 06@07@18 147] 148] 149 Hkk-
na-fo- o lg dye
3¼1½¼vkj½¼,l½] 3
¼2½ ¼Ogh½
vtktvizdk
He was also accused in Crime No. 63/2018 as a co-accused in which Hari was accused and that crime was registered in respect of incident which had taken place due to political rivalry. The other allegations made against him which appear in show cause notice are similar to the allegations which were mentioned in notices issued to the previous two petitioners.
8) To Raosaheb, petitioner from Criminal Writ Petition No. 1359/2019, information about three cases was given and they were as under :-
v- iksyhl zxq-j- ua- dye ,dq.k ?kVuk rkjh[k dksVZ dsl l/;kfLFkrh dz- LVs'ku vkjksih dzekad 1- xaxk[ksM 164@12 498¼v½] 323] 34 4 19@09@12 183@12 lk{khnkj Hkk-na-fo- 05@10@12 fQrwj@vkilkr ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
10
rMtksM >kY;kus
funksZ"k
2- xaxk[ksM 63@18 307] 324] 323] 14 13@03@18 ,l-ih-dz- U;k;izfo"B
504] 506] 143] 03@18
147] 148] 149 06@07@18
Hkk-na-fo- o lg
dye
3¼1½¼vkj½¼,l½] 3
¼2½ ¼Ogh½
vtktvizdk
3- xaxk[ksM vn[kyik= 323] 504] 506] 04 17@09@18 & &
xqUgk 34 Hkk-na-fo-
220@18
Raosaheb was also co-accused in Crime No. 63/2018 with so called leader Hari. In case of Raosaheb case punishable under section 498- A of IPC was also mentioned when under provisions sections 55 to 57 of the Act, such case cannot be used. These circumstances show the non application of mind of the officer. The other allegations made against Raosaheb were of similar to allegatios mentioned in respect of previous three petitioners.
9) To Dayanand, the petitioner of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1360/2019, three offences were informed which were as under :-
v- iksyhl zxq-j- ua- dye ,dq.k ?kVuk rkjh[k dksVZ dsl l/;kfLFkrh dz- LVs'ku vkjksih dzekad 1- xaxk[ksM 104@13 452] 323] 504] 4 26@04@13 192@13 funksZ"k 506] 34 Hkk-na-fo- 25@11@13 2- xaxk[ksM vn[kyik 323] 504] 506] 34 02 12@03@17 & dye 149 = xqUgk Hkk-na-fo- lhvkihlh uksVhl 74@17 3- xaxk[ksM 63@18 307] 324] 323] 14 13@03@18 ,l-ih-dz- U;k;izfo"B 504] 506] 143] 03@18 147] 148] 149 Hkk- 06@07@18 ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
11
na-fo- o lg dye
3¼1½¼vkj½¼,l½] 3
¼2½ ¼Ogh½
vtktvizdk
Dayanand was also co-accused in Crime No. 63/2018 in which Hari was accused and other material mentioned as against him is similar to the material which was informed to the other petitioners. He was also never convicted. In his case, it was informed that in the past three chapter cases were filed against him, though no order was made against him in the chapter cases against him.
10) All the petitioners replied the aforesaid show cause notice. They contended that the externment proceedings were started against them out of political issue, dispute. They contended that they were ordinary labours and they were earning their livelihood only by doing the labour work. They contended that no gang as alleged in the show cause notice was in existence. They contended that as they are from Bhavki of Hari, their names were taken in the last crime and there was no gang as such.
11) The submissions made and the record show that all the crimes against the petitioners were registered only in Gangakhed Police Station. In show cause notice and even in the order no activity of petitioners is shown in other Tahsils which are covered by the ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.12
externment order. The order of externment shows that as against petitioner Dayanand Crime No. 67/2019 under Prohibition Act is also mentioned in externment order when this crime was not mentioned in show cause notice. Thus, the principle of natural justice were not followed in the case of Dayanand. The externment order shows that the movement of the gang was found in the area of Gangakhed Police Station and area of Sambhaji Nagar Police Station, Parli, District Beed. There is no real justification in the externment order as to why it is necessary to make externment order in respect of remaining areas. Only mention that the other areas, other Tahsils are adjacent to Gangakhed Police Station area and due to conveyance available, the petitioners can operate from those areas is not sufficient. If that proposition is accepted, in view of the modes of communication available at present, no area can be excluded. Thus, the reasoning given in respect of the order of externment which is applicable to Tahsils other than Gangakhed is not that convincing. There is no specific mention about any incident during which the movements were noticed in adjacent areas and there is nothing to show that they have the capacity to operate from those places. Thus, the order made against the petitioners is excessive. The other circumstances show that there is clear possibility of malice behind the order. It was submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were working for one political ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
13organisation and to prevent them for working for the said organisation, the externment order is issued. When the externment order was made, the election to Parliament were already declared and as per the tenure of the State Legislative Assembly, the externment order covers the period of election process of State Legislative Assembly also. As already observed, petitioners have dispute with rival political group.
12) Due to the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the Act, in such cases the order needs to mention as to what is the nature of such dispute, as to what was action taken against rival political group and if that was not taken, why such action was not taken against rival political group and why the action needs to be taken against only one political group. Further, there are no convincing reasons as to why the period of externment is of only six months in respect of petitioners of first three petitions and it is of one year in respect of the petitioners from the remaining two petitions. These circumstances also show that there was no subjective satisfaction and the officer was not fully satisfied due to the nature of aforesaid material produced against the petitioners. For the same grounds, there cannot be different approach in respect of different persons.
13) The externment order is a serious thing and it affects ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
14fundamental rights. The provision of Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India show that the fundamental right of freedom of movement guaranteed by clause (d) of Article 19 is in addition to the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One has to go with the presumption that externment order has violated these rights unless the law and the procedure given for permissible restrictions is followed. To ascertain as to whether the order of externment is as per law prescribing restrictions, the Court has power to scrutinise the material on the basis of which the order is made. Though it is a matter of subjective satisfaction, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain as to whether there were malafides behind the order and whether the order can sustain in law, whether it is as per the provisions of law, creating restrictions on fundamental rights.
14) The provision of Article 19 of Constitution of India shows that there must be 'law in existence' for putting restriction. The restriction needs to be reasonable and the term reasonable restriction applies to substantive reasonableness and also procedural reasonableness. From that angle also while ascertaining the aforesaid things, the Court needs to consider various aspects like object behind the order and that needs to be considered in relation to the conditions which were prevalent at the time when the order ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
15was made. Such order can be made only when 'evil' exists and for that there needs to be material. Then it needs to be ascertained as to whether the restriction is proportionate to the evil. The Court is also expected to ascertain the extent and urgency in respect of evil. At the time of consideration of challenge to the externment order, the Court is expected to keep all these things in mind, otherwise there will be no protection to the fundamental rights.
15) In the present matter, the police station wanted to show that the gang was formed of which Hari was the leader and present petitioners and others were it's members. From the record, it can be said that the officer and the police station wanted to use only the provision of section 55 of the Act. The provision runs as under :-
"55. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons :- Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and in other areas in which a Commissioner is appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Superintendent empowered by the State Government in that behalf, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such officer may, by ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.16
notification addressed to the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men of such gang or body and published by beat of drum or otherwise as such officer thinks fit, direct the members of such gang or body so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto within such time as such officer shall prescribe, and not to enter to area for the areas and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, or return to the place from which each of them was directed to remove himself."
If we read the provision of section 55 of the Act, one can say that the provision is not that compact and on many aspects, there are vague terms. Only after going through the scheme prepared in the Act for externment and after considering the provisions of sections 56 and 57 of the Act, one can understand the meaning of some relevant terms, expressions used in section 55 of the Act. The objectionable activities are described as 'unlawful designs' which are entertained by such gang and the purpose is mentioned that to 'prevent violence and alarm'. The aforesaid terms, expressions can be found only in clauses (a) (b) and (bb) of section 56 of the Act. ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::
Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
17They are as under :-
"56. Removal of persons about to commit offence :- (1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf -
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or.
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or.
(bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.18
act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or."
16) This Court holds that the provision of section 55 needs to be considered with the aforesaid portion of provision of section 56 of the Act and so, the case against the persons like present petitioners need to be brought within the scope of these provisions. If that is not done, due to the vagueness of the provision of section 55 of the Act, there will be opportunity to the officer to pass order in other circumstances which are not described under the scheme of externment.
17) The aforesaid provisions and discussion show that in such a case it first needs to be established that 'gang' as mentioned in section 55 exists. In the present matter, only one crime of the year 2018 is mentioned in which the petitioners are shown as accused along with so called leader Hari. There is clear possibility ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 ::: Cri.W.P.No. 1356/19 & Ors.
19that the said incident took place out of some political dispute in view of the description of the incident given in order and the show cause notice. The other offences mentioned along with the description show that those crimes were registered due to individual disputes of the petitioners and not due to the activity of the gang. The incidents for which the crimes are registered due to individual disputes cannot be considered under section 55 of the Act. Thus, in the present matter, the basic ingredients of section 55 are lacking. This Court holds that there is clear possibility of malice and it is an attempt to suppress the political opponents of ruling group. It is unfortunate that officers are not acting fairly and such orders are being passed against the political opponents. This Court holds that in view of the facts of the present matter, intervention is necessary to protect the fundamental rights. In the result, following order :-
O R D E R All the petitions are allowed. The order of externment made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Superintendent of Police) and the order made by the appellate authority are hereby set aside.
Rule is made absolute in those terms.
[ K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:22:38 :::