CRIMINAL Mohammed Rais Moin Qureshi v. Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 1, Mumbai & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence both the Petitions are disposed of by a
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Hence I pass the following order : i) Impugned orders passed Appellate Authority modified. The direction Appellate Authority remand matter Competent Authority clarified Appeals preferred Petitioners stand allowed by setting aside the orders of externment passed against the Petitioners. ii) It clarified notwithstanding setting…
Judgment
Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service. Considering facts and circumstances of the case taken up for hearing forthwith.
The Petitions
Operative part
identical. Hence both the Petitions are disposed of by a common order.
For convenience reference Criminal Writ Petition No.1350
2005. An externment passed against Petitioner Section 60 Bombay Police Act,
1951. A statutory appeal preferred Petitioner against order. The statutory Appeal decided Appellate Authority - 2 - 10th March
2005. The Appellate Authority externment law. The Authority the order of externment was excessive and there was non-application of mind by the Competent Authority.
However, operative order, Appellate Authority stated Appeal partly allowed remand. The Appellate Authority issued remand direction remove defects proceedings from the stage of show cause notice and to issue fresh order.
The learned Counsel Petitioner Petitions stated externment occasion Appellate Authority remand. He submitted He remand directs concerned Authority initiate proceedings externment a order. submitted Appellate Authority jurisdiction pass the said order. The learned A.P.P. for the Respondents has supported the impugned Judgments and Orders.
I considered submissions. It cannot absolute proposition deciding appeal preferred against externment, the Appellate authority cannot remand. However, present case, Appellate Authority recorded categorical finding externment passed a respect referred notice. The Appellate Authority a result - 3 - inclusion externment, excessive. The further finding recorded that there was non application of mind on the part of the concerned Officer who has passed order of externment.
When finding recorded illegal occasion remitting the matter concerned Officer. The remand in my erroneous contrary law. The Appellate Authority to have quashed the order of externment and there was no occasion to pass the order of remand.
Hence I pass the following order : i) Impugned orders passed Appellate Authority modified. The direction Appellate Authority remand matter Competent Authority clarified Appeals preferred Petitioners stand allowed by setting aside the orders of externment passed against the Petitioners. ii) It clarified notwithstanding setting orders externment, always Respondents initiate appropriate proceedings against the Petitioner in accordance with law. iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence both the Petitions are disposed of by a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Mar 2005. The bench was A S OKA.
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.