High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 BOM CK 0174

Mahesh s/o. Prakash Wasnik vs The Divisional Commissioner

Bombay High Court · Decided on 30 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K.Deshpande, M.G.Giratkar
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
872 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 240 words
1.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the

consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order

dt.29.4.2017 passed in Appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra

Police Act by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur

confirming the order dated 24-8-2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Tumsar externing the petitioner from District Bhandara

for his illegal activities.

3.

From the reply filed by the respondents itself, it is

apparent that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

28.6.2016. Upon perusal of this show cause notice, we are unable to

gather anything namely the offences said to have been committed by

the petitioner and the material considered for passing the order of

externment. Thus, the petitioner has failed to get an effective

opportunity to make representation against the show cause notice.

The order is, therefore, violative of Section 59 of the Maharashtra

Police Act and it cannot, therefore, be sustained.

4.

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order

dated 29-4-2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur

Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.24 of 2016 and the Order dated 24-8-

2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tumsar in Criminal

Case No.4 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. The

respondents are at liberty to institute fresh proceedings in

accordance with law.

5.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

costs.