1 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.167 Of 2011 1) Gulabshah Mahboobshah Fakir, Age 60 years, Occupation : Business. 2) Rafiqueshah Gulabshah Fakir, Age 30 years, Occupation : Business. 3) Zakirshah Gulabshah Fakir, Age 23 years, Occupation : Business. 4) Aadilshah Gulabshah Fakir, Age 25 years, Occupation : Business. 5) Jabbarshah Gulabshah Fakir, Age 28 years, Occupation : Business. 6) Ekbalshah Gulabshah Fakir, Age 50 years, Occupation : Business. 7) Gaffarshah Mahboobshah Fakir, Age 50 years, Occupation : Business. 8) Aarifshah Dadamiya Fakir, Age 50 years, Occupation : Business. 9) Salimshah Dadamiya Fakir, Age 35 years, Occupation : Business. 2 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 10) Peeranshah Dadamiya Fakir, Age 55 years, Occupation : Business. 11) Norrashah Dadamiya Fakir, Age 53 years, Occupation : Business. All residents of Kazi Plot, Wadjai Road, District Dhule. .... Petitioners. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2) Superintendent of Police, Azad Nagar Police Station, Dhule. 3) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhule at Dhule. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. S.T. Kazi, Advocate, for the petitioners (appointed). Shri. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 3 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Heard finally. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2) The petitioners question legality of externment order No.290/LCB/Externment/23/2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhule dated 30-9-2010 externing from Dhule district for two years and confirmed in appeal by Principal Secretary. 3) Learned counsel submits there is no formation of gang by the externees. They are falsely roped in. There is another rival group in the said city. Learned counsel in order to stress her point took recourse to the judgment and observations of the Division Bench dated 18th June 2009 recorded in Criminal Writ Petition No.501 of 2009 filed by Smt. Najamabee Gulabsha Fakir (wife of petitioner No.1). In the said application, the request for police protection or appropriate protection was permitted to be made to the concerned Superintendent of Police. 4) Learned counsel submits that, indeed there are two rival groups in the city and several cases are pending between both of them. It is informed that members from rival groups are 4 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 also externed by the competent authority. 5) Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 conceives that, whenever it shall appear to the competent authority appointed under section 7 that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such officer may by a notification addressed to the persons appearing to be leaders or chief men of such gang or body to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction. 6) The list of offences faced by the petitioners is at page 22. Petitioner No. 1-Gulabshah has three cases. Petitioner No.2-Rafiqshah has three cases. Petitioner No.3-Zakirshah has one case. Petitioner No.4-Aadilshah has three cases. Petitioner No.5-Jabbarshah has two cases. Petitioner No.6-Ekbalshah has one case. Petitioner No.7-Gaffarshah has one case. Petitioner No.8 - Aarifshah Dadamiya Fakir has two cases. Petitioner No.9 Salimshah has two cases. Petitioner No.10 - Peeranshah has one case. Petitioner No.11-Norrashah has one case. All these cases 5 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 are of Azad nagar Police Station Dhule, Dhule City Police Station and Deopur Police Station. 7) The authorities concerned have attempted to effect service upon Gulabshah Fakir, however, he did not accept notice but reply was tendered by all the petitioners jointly making bald allegation against the rival group. The petitioners urged that they have not formed gang but the offences attributed against them are individually allegedly committed by them. Learned counsel also submits that the accused petitioner No.1 has been acquitted from Crime No.209 of 2007 for offence under section 376, 452, 363 IPC by order dated 24-10-2008. 8) The subjective satisfaction arrived by the authorities is spelt out in the order. The gangs of the petitioners and rival group have polluted the atmosphere in the vicinity and the behaviour was beyond repairs. The ordinary law proved insufficient to curtail the persistent activities of the petitioners. The liberty of a person is involved, which naturally warrants strict scrutiny of the externment order. The order under challenge cannot be branded to be in cavalier manner or without proper application of mind. 6 Cri. W.P. No.167 of 2011 9) Having gone through the list of accusations I find that the accused petitioner No.1-Gulabshah has successfully attempted to avoid his lawful apprehension by the competent authority. Thereafter he faced prosecution in terms of Crime No. 217/2009 of Dhule City Police Station. 10) Survey of all the facts illustrate that the activities of the both groups were dangerous for the peaceful atmosphere in the city of Dhule and consequently the authority had no option but to exercise powers in terms of Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act 1951. The order of the appellate authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or non application of mind. The writ petition lacks merits, dismissed. Rule discharged. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl