Bombay High Court
Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir vs The Divisional Commissioner Amravati ... on 25 September, 2017
Author: Vasanti A Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, M.G.Giratkar
1 wp703.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703 OF 2017
Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir,
Aged about 27 years, Occ.
Labour, r/o.Wadali, Near
Masjid, Amravati, Tq. and
Distt. Amravati. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1.The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Tq. and Distt.
Amravati.
2.Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Zone I), Police Commissionerate,
Amravati City, Amravati (MS). .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.J.B.Kasat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the Respondents.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 :::
2 wp703.17.odt
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 25.9.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati City, Amravati dt.23.6.2016 externing the petitioner from Amravati City and Amravati Rural area for a period of two years.
Mr.J.B.Kasat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside, as in the notice served on the petitioner u/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has not mentioned about the in-camera statements of the two witnesses. It is submitted that though a passing reference is made in the notice u/s.59 that the in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded by giving assurance to them in regard to the non-disclosure of their identity, what was said by these witnesses is not mentioned in the ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 ::: 3 wp703.17.odt show cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner could not effectively give the reply to the show cause notice in the absence of any material about the in-camera statements of the two witnesses. It is stated that though the statements of witnesses are not mentioned in the show cause notice, they are relied on by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, while passing the order externing the petitioner from Amravati City and rural areas. It is submitted that since the Authority has committed a serious flaw while deciding the proposal for the externment of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is submitted that the acts of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to the persons residing in the locality. It is submitted that the in-camera statements of two persons from the locality were recorded and since it appears from the said statements that witnesses were not ready to come forward to tender evidence against the petitioner, the impugned order is passed by considering the statements. It is, however, fairly admitted that in the show cause notice served on the petitioner, there is no specific mention about the in-camera statements made by the witnesses.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 :::
4 wp703.17.odt In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order. If the Deputy Commissioner of Police wanted to rely on the in-camera statements of the witnesses for externing the petitioner, it was necessary for him to mention in the show cause notice, what was stated by the witnesses when their in-camera statements were recorded. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, in the absence of any mention about the in-camera statements made by the witnesses in the show cause notice, the right of the petitioner to give an effective reply stood hampered. As the procedure was not followed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police while deciding the proposal for the externment of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 ::: 5 wp703.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 :::