Aifaz Ahmad Ejaz Ahmad vs State of Maharashtra

Z.A. Haq, J.—Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

The challenge is to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, externing the petitioner for two years from Amravati District and to the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the above-mentioned order. Mr. Navlani, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that the show-cause notice was based on eleven crimes registered against the petitioner and the learned Deputy Commissioner has considered the pendency of all eleven crimes while issuing the externment order. According to Mr. Navlani, learned Advocate for the petitioner the same mistake is committed by the Appellate Authority.

Mr. R.S. Nayak learned A.P.P. for the respondents has not been able to point out that the authority has taken into consideration the effect of the crimes pending against the petitioner independently without being influenced by the fact that the crimes in which the petitioner has been acquitted are also taken into consideration by the Authority. We are of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable as material which could not have been taken into consideration, have been considered while passing the externment order. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. However, it is made clear that the authority is at liberty to issue fresh notice according to law and take decision afresh by considering the crimes which are registered against the petitioner and are pending. It is further made clear that the period spent on account of the stay granted by this Court will not affect the entitlement of the authority to take decision according to law. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.