1 WP.1030-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1030 OF 2011 Jumma Abdul Khan. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. .... Mr.N.N. Gavankar, Advocate i/b. Mr.Arfan Sait, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival submissions for short on this Criminal Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of externment dated 15th March, 2011 externing him from the areas of Greater Bombay District and Sub-Urban Bombay District for a period of one month. Apparently, the period of externment is 2 WP.1030-11 expiring today. Though, by the earlier order of this Court in Criminal Application No.181 of 2011 dated 1st April, 2011 a stay was granted during pendency of the appeal bearing No.59 of 2011 preferred before the competent authority i.e. State of Maharashtra, the said Appeal was disposed of on 7.4.2011 rejecting the prayer of the present petitioner. 3. The only point emphasized on behalf of the petitioner by learned Counsel Mr.Gavankar that certain areas in Mumbai which are specifically mentioned in the externment order dated 15th March, 2011 were not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice dated 2.11.2010. No other ground is mentioned challenging the order of externment. For substantiating the arguments on the said only ground, attention of this Court is drawn to the contents of the show cause notice and specifically appearing in para-2(a) & 2(b) which are on page Nos.10 & 11 of the annexures to the present Writ Petition. It is specifically brought to the notice of this Court that various areas are mentioned in the in-camera statements of the two witnesses in paras-2(a) & 2(b) and such areas are Kasam 3 WP.1030-11 Nagar, Yadav Nagar, Tape Darga, J.P. Road, Shyam Nagar, Veera Desai Road, Abdulla Qureshi Compound, Behram Baug, Sizer Road, Amboli, Malkam Baug, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (W) and the area in the near vicinity. Similarly such area is mentioned in para-3 while alleging the high handed activities of the present petitioner. As against said areas specifically mentioned in the show cause notice, attention of this Court is also drawn towards the areas mentioned in the externment order dated 15th March, 2011. The areas mentioned in the externment order are appearing in para-3 and which are Shyam Nagar, Veera Desai Road, Agarwal Estate, Monarch Qureshi Building Compound, Behrambaug, J.P. Road, Dhake Colony, Amboli, Andheri (West), Jogeshwari (West) and nearby area. By pointing out this, it is submitted that Agarwal Estate, Monarch Qureshi Building compound, Andheri (West) and Dhake Colony are the areas which are mentioned in the externment order are not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. 4. Much is argued on the above aspect by taking shelter of the ratios propounded by the following authorities on the aspect as to 4 WP.1030-11 use of extraneous material for coming to conclusion of externment of the petitioner when such material was not specifically brought to the notice of the externee by way of show cause notice. Said authorities are as under : [i] 1987 (1) Bom.C.R.427 [Smt.Khairunisa Mohamed Suleman Sayyed. Vs. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Miraj & Anr.] [ii] 1987(3) Bom.C.R. 323 [Mr.Isac Santan Fernandes Vs. Shri K.P. Raghuvanshi, Deputy Commissioner of Police and another.] [iii] 1988 CRI. L.J. 1547 [Ganu Vs. M.V. Chitale & Anr.] In other words, it is argued that what is mentioned so far as the geographical area in the externment order is not mentioned in the show cause notice and, therefore, it has resulted in deprieval of right to the present externee to make effective representation. It is further argued that on this count alone, the entire externment order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5 WP.1030-11 5. Counter to the above argument, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the geographical areas as detailed above and mentioned in the show cause notice are not exhaustive but are illustrative and there is also specific mention that the activities of the present externee are also confined to nearby areas and as such various places mentioned in the in-camera statements appearing in paras 2(a) & 2(b) of the show cause notice in fact are covered by the area of Andheri (West). In any way, further argued on behalf of the State, that by way of entire contents of the show cause notice which is running in six pages, ample material including the geographical area was given to the knowledge of the externee and now he cannot take shelter of non-mentioning of Andheri (West) in the show cause notice, as various areas mentioned in para 2(a) & 2(b) are in fact the geographical areas coming under Andheri (West). 6. Considering the rival submissions and still considering the ratios propounded by the above authorities which are taken shelter of by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, it is a not a case in 6 WP.1030-11 which interference is warranted so as to quash and set aside the externment order which is otherwise also of the date 15th March, 2011. Considering the overall view of the matter and the contents of the show cause notice, in the opinion of this Court, the sole point of argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained and accordingly present Writ Petition is disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Writ Petition No.1030 of 2011 is dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD