High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 20241.Sagar s/o. Kishor Sarvade,Age 25 years, Occu. Labourer,R/o. HUDCO Colony, Latur,Taluka and District Latur2.Bandu s/o. Vasant Madale,Age 26 years, Occu. Labourer,R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur,Taluka and District Latur3.Shaikh Khaled Shabbir,Age 36 years, Occu. Labourer,Anand Nagar, Latur,Taluka and District Latur4.Laxman s/o. Apparao Waghmare,Age 39 years, Occu. Labourer,R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur,Taluka and District Latur5.Sanjay s/o. Shrimant Yadav,Agge 60 years, Occu. Labourer,R/o. Moti Nagar, Latur..PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThe Superintendent of Police,Latur, District Latur2.The Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad3.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Latur Sub-Division, Latur4.The Police Inspector,Gandhi Chowk Police Station,Latur
Legal Reasoning
2 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtMr. Amolkumar S. Wakode, Advocate for Petitioners : Smt. A. S. Deshukh, APP for Respondents ...WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2024Sanjay Bhanudas Gaikwad,Age 45 years, Occu. Labour,R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur,Taluka and District Latur..PetitionerVersus1.The Superintendent of Police,Latur, Taluka and District Latur2.The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Tq. and Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar..RespondentsMr. Krushna S. Solanke, Advocate for Petitioners;Smt. A. S. Deshukh, APP for Respondents CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE: 18-06-2025PER COURT:-1.Since in both the petitions the order under challenge is thesame, the petitions are being taken together for decision.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedA.P.P. for the State by consent taken up for final dispoal.3.The petitioners have approached this Court challenging theorder/s passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner inAppeal, dated 10.12.2024 and 11.11.2024, respectively rejecting 3 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtthe appeals filed by the petitioners and confirming the ordersdated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No.1 Superintendent ofPolice.4.The facts in short are that a proposal was sent for takingaction of externment against the petitioners and five others.Pursuant to the proposal, notices were served by respondent No.1.After hearing, an action of externment was taken only againstpresent petitioners. The petitioners came to be externed fromentire district Latur for three months by order dated 23.09.2024.5.It is observed in the order that there are 41 offences pendingagainst the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2058 of 2024and 2 offences against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2008 of2024 pending with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur for theoffence punishable under Section 12-A of the MaharashtraPrevention of Gambling Act. The authority also recorded thestatements of two witnesses, who were not willing to disclose theiridentity. The officer, thus, considering the material was satisfiedthat order of externment needs to be passed and passed the order.6.In the appeals, the said order came to be confirmed.Petitioners are, therefore, before this Court.7.Both the learned counsel for the petitioners havevehemently argued that there is no material appearing against the 4 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtpetitioners to take action of externment. Though 41 offences areshown against petitioner Sanjay Bhanudas Gaikwad, he is notconvicted in a single trial. All the cases were pending on the dateof passing the order. The case under Section 12-A of theMaharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act cannot be said to besufficient to take action of externment. The maximum punishmentfor the said section is three months or fine of Rs.300/-. There is nospecific observation made by the Superintendent of Police as towhat made him to come to conclusion that action of externment isnecessary. The offences are registered only in one police stationand still the action is taken of externment, externing thepetitioners from the entire district Latur. Learned counsel for thepetitioners, thus, pray for allowing the writ petitions. They reliedupon the judgment in the case of Raees Rashid Shaikh vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of2022, dated 25.03.2022. 8.The learned A.P.P. has strenuously argued that the activitiesof the petitioner are such that the Superintendent of Police wasrequired to take action. Though there is no conviction recorded tillpassing of the order, but the volume of all complaints shows thegravity of the situation and the conduct of petitioner – SanjayGaikwad is like a leader of the gang. There are secret statementsrecorded of the two persons and those are considered by theauthority. A notice was served upon petitioner Sagar Sarode 5 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtdirecting him to appear within seven days before theSuperintendent of Police, however, he did not appear. Running ofgambling center is also creating law and order situation in thearea. The action is taken to curtail such activities of thepetitioners. She, therefore, prays for rejection of this writ petition.9.This Court has gone through the order passed by theSuperintendent of Police. It is seen that what weighed with thesaid authority is pendency of 41 cases against petitioner SanjayGaikwad. The statements considered by the authority are perusedby this Court. Both the statements are identical. The personshave stated that petitioner Sanjay Gaikwad runs gambling center.The people in the locality are affected because of this center andthey are addicted to various persons. To run a gambling center,the petitioners create terror situation. It is for this reason, no onecome forward to give evidence against the petitioners. It is furtherstated that these activities are also affecting the people in thelocality financially. There is a tendency, some of the people havecommitted suicide because of financial crisis.10.This Court finds that the above material is too short to cometo conclusion that action under Section 55 of the MaharashtraPolice Act is required to be taken. This Court has gone through thejudgment in the case of Raees (surpa). This Court has observed inthat case that though serious cases are pending against the 6 53-CrWP-2008-24.odtpetitioners, there is no conviction recorded in any of the casesand, on the contrary, they are acquitted in some of the cases. Thedetails of the order and secret statements are not mentioned inthe order. The crimes in the case were individualistic in nature.11.Considering all above, this Court finds that in the presentcases also, there is no conviction recorded by any of the Court tillpassing of the order. Considering the punishment for the offencepunishable under Section 12A i.e. fine of Rs.300/- andimprisonment up to three months, this Court finds that thoseoffences are not serious or nor of the nature calling for action ofexternment.12.For the above reasons, this Court is inclined to allow thepetitions. Hence, the order;ORDERi)The criminal writ petitions stand allowed. ii)The impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 11.11.2024,passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner inappeals, rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners, arequashed and set aside. [KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGErrd