Ladda 1 wp-1042-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1042 of 2011. Gopi Vilas Ghadge ] ..PETITIONER. Versus The District Superintendent, Satara District Satara and Anr. ] ..RESPONDENTS. .... Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S.A.Shaikh, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 3rd May, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 6TH May, 2011 P.C. :­ 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Ladda 2 wp-1042-11.doc 2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. 3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 9th December, 2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Satara and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd March, 2011 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 4. Initially, show cause notice dated 13th November, 2010 was issued against four proposed externees, including the present petitioner as proposed externee No.3. It was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Satara, proposing to extern all the four proposed externees under the provisions of Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In the said notice various details were given showing the criminal antecedents as well as pending cases against the proposed externees. It is also alleged in the notice that the movements of the gang or body of persons comprising of said four proposed externees was causing or attempted to cause danger, or alarm, or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs were entertained by such gang members. The criminal Ladda 3 wp-1042-11.doc antecedents as against the proposed externees were detailed in the said notice and same are reproduced herein for the sake of ready reference and in order to ascertain whether there was any application of mind while sending the said show cause notice. Said antecedents are reproduced below :­ Sr No. Police Station C.R.No. Offences under Sections Name of Accused. 1. Wai 38/06 324,143,147,148,504,506 of I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 1) Gopinath Vilas Ghadge. 2) Lakhan Namdeo Ghadge 2. Wai 128/07 307,143, 147,148,149,324 of I.P.C. 1) Kiran Vilas Ghadge 2) Lakhan Namdeo Ghadge 3) Shakti Vilas Ghadge 3. Wai 122/08 324,325,143,147,148,149 of I.P.C. 1)Kiran Vilas Ghadge 2)Shakti Vilas Ghadge 4. Wai 127/08 457,380 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Lakhan Namdeo Ghadge 5. Wai 83/10 143, 147,149,427, 504,506 of I.P.C. 1) Gopinath Vilas Ghadge. 2) Lakhan Namdeo Ghadge 5. On bare perusal of the above mentioned criminal antecedents, it is apparent that present petitioner ­ Gopi Vilas Ghadge, is mentioned as accused in the offences at Serial Nos. 1 Ladda 4 wp-1042-11.doc and 5. However, it is factual position that in the order of the Appellate Authority, the following offences are mentioned as against the present petitioner. Said offences are reproduced below :­ Sr No. Police Station C.R.No. Offences under Sections 1. Wai 38/06 324,143,147,148,504,506 of I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Wai 128/07 307,143, 147,148,149,324 of I.P.C. 6. On careful perusal of the said antecedents mentioned as against the present petitioner in show cause notice and also in the order of the Appellate Authority, on the face of it there is variance in the said information. During the arguments, it is in fact a position conceded on behalf of the State that the offences which are mentioned in the order of the Appellate Authority are the offences which are alleged against the present petitioner and that information is correct. Said two cases are C.R.Nos. 38 of 2006 and 128 of 2007 registered with Wai Police Station and these cases are specifically mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the chart which is given in the show cause notice. However, in the said chart mentioned in the show cause notice and reproduced herein above, Ladda 5 wp-1042-11.doc the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned in the said Wai Police Station C.R.No. 128 of 2007 mentioned at Serial No.2. Instead the name of the present petitioner is mentioned as accused in Wai Police Station C.R.No.83 of 2010 which is mentioned at Serial No.5 in the chart given in the show cause notice. Considering this discrepancy and considering admitted position that except two cases mentioned in the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. Wai Police Station C.R.Nos. 38 of 2006 and C.R.No.128 of 2007, there are no other criminal cases against the present petitioner ­ Gopi Vilas Ghadge. As such, as mentioned above, on the face of the said show cause notice, it has been given on erroneous material and thus leading to the conclusion that said show cause notice was given without any application of mind vis­ a­vis the involvement of the present petitioner in a particular offence. 7. Apart from the above, main defect in the show cause notice, it is an admitted position and also conceded by learned A.P.P.for the State that both the cases of Wai Police Station, C.R.Nos. 38 of 2006 and 128 of 2007 have ended in acquittal so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Ladda 6 wp-1042-11.doc 8. Apart from the above, it is also brought to the notice of this Court and almost admitted position that both these cases filed against the petitioner arose out of the family quarrel and alleging involvement of the petitioner along with the mob of persons belonging to Gosavi community which is the triable community to which the present petitioner also belong. Considering this, the finding of Superintendent of Police, Satara as mentioned in the externment order as to proposed externees mentioned in the show cause notice including the present petitioner had formed a gang or body of persons causing danger to the public at large and their activities are injurious to the property and person of the public, is erroneous. In that view of the matter, the circumstances warrant the interference in the impugned order of externment and also in the order of the Appellate Authority thereby quashing and setting aside the same. 9. In the result, present writ petition succeeds and same is disposed of with the following order:­ Ladda 7 wp-1042-11.doc ORDER. (i) Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2011 is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of externment dated 9th December, 2010 and the order dated 22nd March, 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed and set­aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)