Shivkumar @ Tarjan Mariappa Naiker v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
observations, Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 s. 56
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Dy. - 2 - Learned APP has filed counter affidavit of Commissioner Police, Mulund submits a mistake communicated petitioner whereas record externment passed a period months. We communicated petitioner appears the words "six years" written officer passed wanted externment years, although so. Therefore, ground…
Judgment
externment passed against petitioner a period years. Whereas law, respondents empowered externment beyond years. The served petitioner clearly mentions petitioner externed a period "six years" have been written in pen whereas the order itself is typed.
#2. Dy. - 2 - Learned APP has filed counter affidavit of Commissioner Police, Mulund submits a mistake communicated petitioner whereas record externment passed a period months. We communicated petitioner appears the words "six years" written officer passed wanted externment years, although so. Therefore, ground alone, order, however liberty respondents a proper order, the circumstances so warrant. With these observations, Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J. ] Sd/- [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: observations, Writ Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 56.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Apr 2008. The bench was A P BHANGALE, BILAL NAZKI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.