1 Criminal Writ Petition No.403/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.403 OF 2011 Rajendra s/o Khemchand Bafana Age 45 years, Occ. Agri. & Business R/o Nardana, Tq. Shindkheda, District Dhule ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirpur Division, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 15th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.403/2011 2. The petitioner questions the order dated 3rd May 2011 in Appeal No.EXT-2011/78/VC-3(A), recorded by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (respondent No.2), based on the order dated 25th March 2011, in Externment proceedings No.9/2010, passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Shirpur Division, Taluka Shirpur, whereby the petitioner was directed to be externed for a period of three months from Dhule district. 3. The petitioner allegedly faced 7 to 8 criminal cases and the officials, based on police report, felt that his activities are prejudicial to the villagers and it has caused panic in the mind in the society. The petitioner allegedly has created atmosphere of fear and also harmony in the sections of the society are tried to be disrupted. A notice dated 2nd July 2010 was slapped by the S.D.P.O. to the petitioner. 4. After going through the record, I find that, the pending cases to which reference is given by the authorities, were identically pending against four other persons namely Jitendra Prabhakar Shisode, Nitin Shivaji Chaudhari, Prakash Sahebrao Shisode and Devanand Shankar Patil. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirpur did not prosecute and proceed to extern those four persons though the prosecution faced by them was identical cases of Crime No.47/2008 and 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.403/2011 48/2008 and Chapter Case No.94/2008. It is clear, for one incident 2 or 3 cases are lodged by police authorities to make a show that the gravity of offence by the petitioner is writ large. The scale which was applied by the Sub-Divisional Officer to four persons to drop the proceedings should have been applied in the case of the petitioner with equal force. There is no justification offered by the authorities concerned as to why a different scale has been used to deal with the case of petitioner than the above referred four persons. 5. It appears that the petitioner, as a whistle-blower in the village, has tried to point out illegal activities of the influential person in the village, a Sarpanch, who has allegedly transferred the properties owned by Grampanchayat or the Government either in his name or in the name of his family members. Question raised by the petitioner, created a situation of panic to the said family and it has exhausted its remedies against the petitioner. The petitioner has lodged a report against several persons on 14.11.2009. As a counterblast to the same, on the same date, he was slapped with two cases, one by Sanjay and another by person belonging to Backward community, in terms of infraction of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This also adds to the miserable situation that the petitioner was required to face at the hands of the influential persons. Taking 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.403/2011 all these aspects into consideration, the authorities did not discharge their obligation in the legal frame. Consequently, externment for three months was unwarranted. The liberty of the petitioner should not have been curtailed when the cases are pending and not yet decided. Taking these aspects and features into consideration, the order referred above, externing the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty to enter the concerned village. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. )