1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1035/2010 Venkat s/o Pundlik Metkar - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PB Vikhe-Patil, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for Respondents. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 25th January, 2011. COURT’S ORDER: 1) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for the Respondents. 2) The petitioner, a resident of Bhokar, District Nanded, was served with a show cause notice dated 23rd November, 2009 by the respondent no.2, asking him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Nanded district for a period of two years. Indeed, the notice also informs that the Department/Respondent No.2 desired externment for two years even from the adjoining districts, i.e. Hingoli, Parbhani and Latur. 2 3) The petitioner replied the show cause notice by his explanation dated 17.2.2010 before the Respondent No.2, whereby he informs that he is a peace-loving person; his father was a member of the Gram Panchayat, Bhokar since last fifteen years and he holds command in the society. 4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the family is dependent on the income of the petitioner and the externment order being illegal, needs to be quashed. The learned Counsel further submits that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is short of requisite details and consequently the entire action of externment is vitiated. The Counsel has relied to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Khairunisa Mohamed Suleman Sayyed Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Miraj and Anr., reported in 1987 (1) Bom.C.R. 427. In the case of Khairunisa, indeed the Lordships found that the substance of the order was the genesis of extraneous undisclosed material, which was not even informed to said Khairunisa. No such eventuality is surfacing in the present case. 5) The petitioner has faced four 3 prosecution, details of which are furnished to him. According to learned Counsel, the nature of the prosecution launched against the petitioner being not serious, externment of the petitioner being an extreme step, restricting liberty of the petitioner, as enshrined under the Constitution, the order of externment requires to be quashed and set aside. 6) The submissions though referred to the Constitutional arrangement, however, difficult to digest at this stage, time and place. The petitioner cannot dispute and deny the initiation of four prosecutions which are referred in the notice. That apart, several other instances/events are to the knowledge of the police, wherein the petitioner has teased college-going girl students and the persons in the vicinity. However, due to his fear and terror, the matter could not be taken to task. 7) It is not that the petitioner has been externed for the period of two years from two districts. The restriction by the order specify, it is from Nanded district for the period of two years, effective from 7th June, 2010. The survey of record also illustrate, even after service of the show cause notice and the proceeding was in progress, the petitioner did not mend his ways 4 and mis-behaviour and even went on committing another offence, giving rise to Crime No.55/2010 under Sections 394, 294, 452 r/w 34 of IPC. The order under challenge does not portray that there is non-application of mind, or based on any extraneous material, illegality is caused against the petitioner. The restriction in the liberty of the accused/petitioner is his self-invited activities detrimental to the peace and tranquility. It is created by him due to his involvement in the offences referred above and he has virtually embittered the college-going girl. Hence, no case for exercise of powers in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is sans merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/