Vinod Vijay Bagade v. Police Sub Inspector, Ozar Police Station & Ors.

Mr.Amogh Karandikar i/b. Smt. Suvarna Vast, Advocate, for the Petitioner Ms S.V.Gajare, APP, for Respondent No.4 - State CORAM DATE : : R.C.CHAVAN, J. 9TH MAY, 2012 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

#2. This petition questions the order passed by the Superintendednt of Police, Nasik externing the petitioner along with six others from Nasik District for a period of one year. This order was passed on 28th September, 2010 and an appeal was carried to the Government and the Principal Secretary (Home) dismissed the appeal 2 WP 1-12.odt on 30th July, 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the notice of proposed externment was given under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act on 5th December, 2009 but the order of externment itself came to be passed on 28th September, 2010 i. e. almost nine months after the notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Judgment of Bombay High Court in Dilip Laxman Kokare Versus S.M.Ambedkar and another, reported in 1991(1) Mh.L.J.833. In that case, there was delay of about one and half years in passing the order of externment after the notice was issued and this was held by the Court to be sufficient to quash the externment order. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, delay in this case is not on account of any negligence on the part of the authority concerned. Time was sought by six other externees, who were dealt with in the same proceedings along with the petitioenr and this resulted in delay in conclusion of the 3 WP 1-12.odt proceedings. A copy of roznama of proceedings shows that on 18th December, 2009 they sought time to produce witnesses till 15th January,

#2010. On 15th January, 2010, they again filed an application seeking an adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 2nd February, 2010. Again the externees sought further extension of time on 17th February, 2010. On some dates one of the externees was not present and therefore, the matter had to be adjourned. Therefore, the delay in passing the order cannot be a ground for setting aside the externment.

#3. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there was absolutely no warrant in the order of externment of the petitioenr, since he is not a party to the house -breaking or theft. He was shown to be accused in three Criminal cases which arose out of jurisdiction of Ozar Police Station in which he was shown to be receiver of stolen property. These cases have been registered in the year 4 WP 1-12.odt 2008-2009. The allegation is that in fact, the other externees and the present petitioner followed a gang and the present petitioner received the stolen property which the other externees obtained by their indulgence in house breaking and theft. Therefore, it is not that the petitioner is not involved in activities which could be said to be causing harm to the property of citizens and therefore, it cannot be said that the authority had absolutely no reason to pass such order. The authority has directed externment of the petitioner only from one Nasik District and therefore, there is no excess in the order passed.

#4. In view of this, since the order does not suffer from any infirmity, the petition is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)