1 WP 2198.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2011 Mr. Ganesh @ Ganya Motiram Vichare. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Satya Narayan, Dy. Commissioner, Zone-VIII, Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. M.K. Kocharekar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 04th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Affidavit of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – VIII tendered. Copy received by Mr. Kocharekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order of externment dated 17.6.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone – VIII, Mumbai. The Petitioner submits that : (1) The order passed by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Bombay Police Act; (2) The show cause notice of the Enquiry Officer refers to two in-camera statements. However, in the statement of witness “A”, no place is mentioned where the incident has allegedly taken 2 WP 2198.11.sxw place at the behest of the Petitioner. The notice illustrate, the enquiry was restricted to C.R.No.86 of 2011 while the orders informed of referring other cases giving the total of cases as 11; and (3) The notice of externment does not illustrate the proposed period for externment as it reads “for maximum period of externment”. However, the externment is for a period of two years. 3. The learned Counsel submits, in the criminal cases there is nothing to suggest that witnesses have not come forward. Consequently, the requirement of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act is not complied with and the orders under challenge does not demonstrate application of judicial mind. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied to the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (1991) Vol. 101(1) B.L.R. 631. Paragraph 7 of the said Judgment reads as under :- “7. I will take the last ground first namely that in so far as in camera statement of witness “B” is concerned that no particulars of the place have been given and in the light of that Petitioner was denied proper opportunity to show cause. Statement of witness “B” only shows that incident took place on 20th November, 1997 at 11.25 p.m. In Abdul Kadir Razzaque Beg v/s. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nasik and Ors., the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the time, the date, the place and the nature of incident should be circumscribed within such reasonable limits in order to enable the Petitioner to meet the allegations against him. Whereas the in camera statement of witness “A” apart from 3 WP 2198.11.sxw showing the date and time shows also the place. No such particulars are set out in so far as in camera statement of witness “B” is concerned. The Petitioner therefore was denied a reasonable opportunity of meeting the said ground. Once it is held that the Petitioner was denied the reasonable opportunity, the said ground could not have been the basis of formation of opinion. It is also clear that when the order of externment is based on the several grounds and one of the grounds cannot be sustained, the Court cannot decide which ground weighs with the Externing Authority and it cannot substitute the decision over that of the Externing Authority. The order on that count is liable to be quashed and set aside.” 5. On perusal of the affidavit of Respondent No.1 and the ground as agitated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, It is seen that there are 11 cases pending from the period 1999 to 2011 excluding the 6 or 7 chapter cases. The M.P.D.A. proceedings are also initiated against the Petitioner. Bonds were sought from him and bonds are executed by the Petitioner time to time. 6. In the crime at Vakola Police Station being Crime No.86 of 2011, even if it was singly considered, reference to the complainant as to how she was brandish with the deadly weapon and threatened, as to why she has switched on the electric lights in the corridor is reflected. The Petitioner with his associates barged in the room and threatened them to eliminate, which gave rise to offence under Section 452, 506(2), 509, 323 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The Petitioner and his associate Sudhir Acholkar were arrested. 4 WP 2198.11.sxw 7. The reference by the learned Counsel that the witness "A" in his statement dated 5th March 2011 has not disclosed place of the events. Repelling the record as the statement will have to be read as a whole at page 16, the gist of the statement is given and naturally it informs that when the witness "A" was sitting at his business place, the Petitioner with his two associates rushed at the said business place. He purchased some commodities, without liquidating the payments, he sneaked. Such act of the Petitioner made said complaint to question the Petitioner. He caught hold collar of the witness dragged him out of the shop and threatened, abused and he was brandish with knife. The address/place is mentioned in the statement though the name is placed in the wrapper. This will definitely illustrate, the rights enshrined under the Constitution of India are not tried to be squeezed against the Petitioner. In the statement of Witness “B” dated 07.03.2011, the area of Gaodevi are demonstrated. Reading these statements, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not given any particulars to controvert the same. The threat perception in the mind of the persons in the area is demonstrated in the two statements. The statements are filtered at three levels and the authority issuing the order of exterment again has verified the worth of the statements and genuineness, primary truthfulness in the assertion of the witness. 8. On going through the record, I find that the Petitioner desired to examine witnesses. He placed three witnesses 5 WP 2198.11.sxw after taking substantial time. The Petitioner was attempted to be served with communication of the authorities. However, he avoided under several pretext. 9. The analysis of documents by the authorities taking survey of above fact which informs, care was taken at every stage to ensure right of the Petitioner to be heard. The notice was sending clear message of contempt action. The Petitioner has been externed for a specified period from the area of Mumbai Commissionerate and Mumbai Suburban. There is no delay in show cause notice or taking action against the Petitioner. The order does not display to be unreasonable or associated with any venom to settle personal scores. The order of externment as confirmed by the Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)