1 WP 150-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.150 OF 2011 Rammi Parmajit Singh Rajput .Petitioner V/s. Smt. Megha Gadgil & ors .Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi, for the Petitioner Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for Respondent No.3 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . Rule. By consent, made returnable forthwith. 2. This Petition questions the appellate Order passed by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Maharashtra dismissing the petitioner's Appeal against his externment Ordered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 11th October, 2010 from Districts of Nashik (City), Nashik (Rural), Ahmednagar & Thane 2 WP 150-2011 (Rural) for a period of two years. On 28th June, 2010, Assistant Commissioner of Police at Nashik served upon the petitioner a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why, in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, he should not be externed from the Districts of Nashik (City), Nashik (Rural), Ahmednagar & Thane (Rural) for a period of two years. Notice recited petitioner's complicity in eight offences and also referred to in camera statements of two witnesses recorded by the police. The petitioner filed a reply to this notice. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a notice dated 18th September, 2010 calling upon the petitioner to appear-in- person or with lawyer on 28th September, 2010 to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the Districts of Nashik (City), Nashik (Rural), Ahmednagar & Thane (Rural) for a period of two years. Thereafter, the externment order was passed on 11th October, 3 WP 150-2011 2010. The petitioner's Appeal to the Government came to be rejected by the Principal Secretary (Home). 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority ordering petitioner's externment had not given petitioner hearing as contemplated under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. This does not appear to be so. Apart from the reply filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police in response to the notice issued, the petitioner had filed a written reply even before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 4th October, 2010. The record made available for my perusal by the learned APP shows that the petitioner was also represented by lawyer whose Vakalatnama is on record. In view of this, the ground that petitioner did not have opportunity of hearing before he was ordered to be externed is not available to the petitioner. 4 WP 150-2011 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that out of the list of eight Crimes which are mentioned in the show cause even authority has excluded the first Crime Registration No.372 of 1998 from consideration. As to the C.R.No.38 of 2007 of Panchavati Police Station, an Affidavit of the first informant had been filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police himself stating that the first informant had no grievance about the petitioner. The learned APP submitted that the case which has been filed pursuant to registration of this crime is pending and has not been disposed of. She submitted that the offence concerned could not have been compounded, since in that case, the petitioner is alleged to be involved in commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the Affidavit of the Complainant stating that he has no grievance left itself may indicate possibility that the petitioner was successful 5 WP 150-2011 in prodding the Complainant to withdraw his allegation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that genesis of this incident is defeat of petitioner's mother in an election to the Municipal Council just before the incident. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the next five offences have been registered at Bhadrakali and Sarkarwada Police Station on account of rioting on the 3rd December, 2009 when morchas were taken out, there was stone pelting and rioting at which S.T.Buses were damaged. The statements of two witnesses which have been recorded in camera also show that after this rioting of 3rd December, 2009, the two witnesses were accosted by petitioner on 6th & 7th December, 2009 asking them as to why they did not join morcha. The learned APP submitted that there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner to assault witness A or to 6 WP 150-2011 damage the wares he was selling on his push cart. All the same, genesis of this incident is same political activity  namely, morcha dated 3rd December, 2009. Howsoever reprehensible be the political activities leading to causing loss to the property, it cannot be equated to a Criminal activity of extorting money or causing hurt to people for no reason. Therefore, it seems that the entire material on which the authorities have relied is one political activity dated 3rd December, 2009 which should not have been sufficient to order petitioner's externment for a period of two years from four Districts. 6. Apart from this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been prosecuted for the activity dated 3rd December, 2009 and the cases are pending before the Court, it cannot be said that witnesses are forthcoming. It should have been possible for the authorities 7 WP 150-2011 to show that the witnesses were not forthcoming because of the terror of the petitioner by referring to the record of those cases. He submitted that there is no such material to show that the witnesses are not ready to depose against the petitioner. Merely because cases are pending and witnesses have been cited, it does not follow that the witnesses would be freely ready to depose in respect of the incidents in which the petitioner may be involved. Existence of few courageous people, who stand up against crime does not mean that the criminal is not involving himself in preventing the weak and submissive, who may weary of involvement in controversy from coming to Courts. Therefore, this ground made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not available to the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the order is passed in 8 WP 150-2011 exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In para seven of the order externing the petitioner, the authority has referred to activities as causing alarm, harm or danger to the lives and property of persons which falls under Clause (a) of Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act in respect of which no notice has been served. He also submitted that the authority concerned has received some confidential information which he could not have relied on for forming requisite opinion. 8. Considering the fact that there is in fact only one incident of riot dated 3rd December, 2009 which is the foundation of the externment order passed by the authority and which too emanates from political activity rather than a crime per se, the authority was not justified in ordering petitioner's externment. The order is also bad because though all authorities are restricted to 9 WP 150-2011 Nashik city, the authority as excessively ordered petitioner's externment from Nashik (City), Nashik (Rural), Ahmednagar & Thane (Rural) Districts. 9. In view of this, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are quashed and set aside. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)