1 WP 72 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2011 Abdul Sattar Abdul Aziz Khan, .. Petitioner. -versus The Principal Secretary of Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and another .. Respondents Mr. Rahul Kadam, for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 7th February, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department State of Maharashtra, sitting in an appeal over the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, externing the petitioner, for a period of six months w.e.f. 29th October,2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Notice dated 6th September, 2010 did not give sufficient particulars of time and place at which the appellant is alleged to have been involved intimidatory activities. Relying on the judgment of this Court, in Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors (1999) Vol.101(1) Bom L.R. 631, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2 WP 72 OF 2011 the order must be quashed because notice does not mention the particulars such as the time, the date, the place and the nature of incident, to enable the petitioner to defend himself properly. The observations of the Court in para 7 of the said judgment are 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. The judgment does not held that the date and time and place must be pinpointed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of uttar pradesh -vs- Mohd. Sharif (dead) through L.Rs, (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 376, wherein it has been observed that the chargesheet was vague since particulars with regard to the date and time of incident were not given, thus, denying reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to defend himself. As far as framing of charge is concerned, it is necessary to give particulars as to the date, time and place and what delinquency is committed at particular point of time. Same principle cannot be applied to the present proceeding since, even in view of the judgment of this Court, what is necessary is date, time place and nature of the incident should be circumscribed, within reasonable limits and not necessarily pinpointed. Hence the order cannot be assailed on the ground one of that the witnesses have stated that in the third week of 3 WP 72 OF 2011 July, 2010 at 9.30 p.m. while returning home, he was accosted by the petitioner. The other witnesses too refer the time and place in a similar manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that the petitioner had filed reply to the notice dated 6.9.2010 on 14.9.2010 which was not at all considered by the authority. Learned APP sought to submit that no such reply was received by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who had issued the notice. However, such plea is not open to the State view of the observations of the Principal Secretary in the Appellate order stating that reply had been received on 14.9.2010. The externment order does not show that make any reference to the reply filed and does not show that reply was considered. Thus, for failure to consider reply submitted by the petitio 5.ner, it has to be held that the order depicts non application of mind and is therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Assistant commissioner of Police and that of the Principal Secretary are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)