1 WP 2234.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2234 OF 2011 Mr. Santosh Kapoor Shah. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. J.B. Panke for the Petitioner. Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Externee – Applicant and the learned APP. 2. The Applicant questions the externment order dated 13.6.2011 passed by Respondent No.2 (DCP) in terms of Section 56 (1)(a) and (b) of Police Act, 1951 and confirmed in Appeal by Principal Secretary, Home Department dated 5.7.2011 externing the Applicant for a period of one year from the jurisdiction of Commissionerate of Mumbai. 2 WP 2234.11.sxw 3. The Applicant says (a) the externment order is excessive, (b) the affidavits furnished by him of 15 respectable persons from the locality were not noticed, (c) the witnesses of in-camera statement were not confronted to the Applicant to cross-examine them, (d) the orders passed by both the authorities are without assigning reasons and disclose non-application of mind. 4. The learned Counsel also submits that the exterment proceedings is outcome of a political rivalry in which one Smt. Asha and her brother has filed a case on the issue of temple in the area and the accused Applicant has been harassed. The learned Counsel also submits that even if the four offences to which reference is given are splited in two Police Stations basically from Goregaon Police Station, the Applicant has been externed from all the Police Stations within the ambit of Commissionerate of Police, Mumbai. The learned Counsel has relied on the Judgments in the matter of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & Anr., reported in 2005 All M.R. 1946, in the matter of Milind Hiraman Meshram V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in 2008 All M.R. (Cri.) 1595 and also to the Judgment in the matter of Balu 3 WP 2234.11.sxw Shivling Dombe V/s. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur & Anr. reported in AIR 1969 Bombay 351 (V. 56 C 57). 5. The original record produced by the Respondent/Police is perused. I have also perused the in-camera statements of the witnesses with their names. The Officer recording the statement had verified the genuineness of the maker’s and thereafter, the Senior Officer has also confirmed the recitals to the grievance lodged by those of the witnesses to be correct. The witnesses cannot be exposed to face cross examination. The official act must be believed to its potency. No interference is called for under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The evidences are recorded on 17th and 19th January 2011. The contention that the operational area of the Applicant is restricted to Goregaon may be correct. However, considering the fast communication facilities in the City of Mumbai, the authorities cannot be said to be excessive in directions. It is not squeezing the rights of the Externee/Applicant for his movement to other parts of the area. 4 WP 2234.11.sxw 6. The conduct of the Applicant speaks volume. In the past he was served with contemplated preventive action and on his reply, a bond was executed by him on 6th June 2008. Inspite of such bond being executed, there was no change in the behaviour or characteristic of the Applicant. 7. The learned Counsel also reads four pending cases against the Applicant to inform that they will hardly be culminating into any conviction or any order of stringent nature against the Applicant. 8. At this stage of the matter, this Court is not called upon to intervene and to comment on the competence and the worth of those pending four cases and whether it will result in acquittal or otherwise. 9. The submission that 15 affidavits were tendered and not considered is contrary to the record. The record is otherwise. It illustrate that all such affidavits were examined by the Authorities. The Applicant sought time from the Authority to argue the matter. However, on the next date also, his Advocate did not turn up. Consequently, the matter was argued before the Authority by the Applicant himself and the 5 WP 2234.11.sxw order was passed by the Competent Officer i.e. DCP of the area. 10. The Appellate Authority considered all the basic four objections as were raised by the Applica+nt and crystallized the same in its form of reasoning. It is not expected of the appellate authority to elaborate all the events while deciding the Appeal. The mind set of the Appellate Authority is clearly spelt out in the Appellate order as to the record which was produced and was analyzed to its genuineness. There was harm to public in general. It was not individual dispute or elation to curb the activities of applicant. The area of Mumbai has train and easy road linkage with fast communication and the Authorities could not be expected to extern the applicant from limits of particular Police Station or Zone. Taking survey of the events, I do not see that the order under challenge suffers from any excessive character or is restricting the free movement of the Externee/Applicant. It is the Applicant’s own conduct which is responsible for action that has taken place. Writ Petition dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 6 WP 2234.11.sxw