Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Umar Mohammed Malbari vs K.P. Gaikwad And Anr. on 17 February, 1988

Nasir Beg S/O Sabdar Beg Mirza vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 30 January, 2008

Learned Counsel has further relied on the decision of this Court in [Umar Mohammed Malbari v. K.P. Gaikwad and Anr.] to contend that the writ petition is maintainable even though there is alternate remedy of appeal available under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. It is also his contention that when show cause notice contains certain allegations, not related to the passing of the order of externment, it would make the order invalid as it may misdirect the proposed externee. Thus in short his submission is that although the remedy of appeal is available, the writ petition in the present case would be maintainable, inasmuch as there is violation of fundamental right of the petitioner and the show cause notice is bad for non mentioning of the material details of the allegations against the petitioner and there is no application of mind by the authority to the matter of petitioner, consequently the final order of externment passed against him is vitiated.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S R Dongaonkar - Full Document

Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 16 March, 2001

5 In Umar Mohamed Malbari v. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and another, (supra), the learned Public Prosecutor also contended that entire order of externment was not liable to be struck down merely because it covered areas which were excessive than what was justified and the appropriate areas of externment can be substituted. This contention was rejected on the ground that if the authority had acted in excess, then the jurisdiction of this Court is to quash the order passed in excess of the jurisdiction and there the power of the High Court stops. It was pointed out that the High Court has no power to go further and to correct an excessive order passed by the Authority concerned.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - R K Batta - Full Document

Narayan Sitaram Pawar And Another vs Superintendent Of Police Buldhana And ... on 12 July, 2023

that the area of operation of the impugned order, externing the petitioners' from three districts of Buldhana, Washim and Akola, when the crimes registered against the petitioners' involved only the jurisdiction of Khamgaon (Rural) Police Station, was excessive and arbitrary. The argument raised by the petitioner was that where there is no material on record of the authority to justify the extent of the operation of the impugned order to an area of three districts, the impugned order has to be struck off in its entirety, and a writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have no jurisdiction to reduce the area of operation of the impugned order by correcting the same. (20) Umar Mohammed Malbari (Supra), cited by the petitioner was a case where the petitioner therein was involved in activities alleged against him in the area of Bhivandi, while the order of externment, externed the petitioner out of the limits of Thane, Raigad and Nashik districts. Whilst holding that such an order amounts to a case of excessive order under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the Court has held as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 January, 2013

10 The learned counsel for the Petitioner also criticized the impugned order on the ground that the Petitioner is entitled to move freely in any area and being a citizen of India entitled to exercise his fundamental right. Our attention is brought to the ruling in the case of Umar Mohamed Malbari vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police & Another (1988 Mh.L.J. 1034). In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this High Court observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - A P Bhangale - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next