1 CRWP NO.280/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.280 OF 2011 Rajabhau Sudam Nagargoje, Age 30 years, Occ: Agriculturist, r/o Wagadewadi, Taluka: Gangakhed, District Parbhani. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Parbhani, Taluka & District: Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 14th, 2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. 2 CRWP NO.280/2011 2. The petitioner seeks exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the orders passed by the State Appellate Authority dt.23rd March, 2011 and the orders of externment dt.6th January, 2011, passed by respondent no.2, externing the applicant from two districts viz. Beed and Parbhani. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the show cause notice under Section 56(A) and (B) of Bombay Police Act, 1951, dt. 26.10.2010, spells of six pending cases and one chapter proceeding. However, while deciding the matter, the Sub Divisional Officer dealt with total eight cases and the chapter case. It is apparent, as informed by the applicant and seen from the order of the learned Sub Divisional Officer that the offenses bearing Crime Nos. 199/2009 and 131/2009, registered at Gangakhed and Nanal Peth, Parbhani, respectively, were not referred in the notice. Learned A.P.P. submits that even if there is flaw, since there is a reply from the applicant and he has offered explanation, non disclosure of the other two or three cases in the notice would not vitiate the proceedings. 4. Such submission of learned A.P.P. is difficult to digest as the very right of the 3 CRWP NO.280/2011 applicant to deal with the contentions in the notice, which was issued to him, are fractured. The authorities have not considered that in Crime Nos. 183/1999, 3043/1999 and 111/2004, the applicant was acquitted while in few of the matters, he has settled with the complainant. In one of the case in respect of Gangakhed Sugar Energy, the matter was under contemplation of settlement. The offenses, to which reference is given by the authorities, were basically with personal grievance and had nothing to do with the State or disturbing the property of the State. The two statements of Dattatraya Nagargoje and Bhanudas are considered in distorted manner to give different colour to the situation. 5. The criminal activities to which reference is given, apparently, are confined to the Police Stations at Parbhani or at Gangakhed and it will not be extending to the district of Beed. However, inspite of such situation, the externment order is for two districts which was also uncalled for and informs of excessive action by the authorities. 6. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellate authority did not consider merits of the matter in proper perspective and, consequently initiated action. The acts of the accused/applicant are not so 4 CRWP NO.280/2011 detrimental that his personal liberties are required to be clipped by directing him to remain away from two districts for one year. The orders under challenge, consequently, are excessive in nature, tends to squeeze the liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India to the accused/applicant. The impugned orders are set aside. Writ Petition allowed. Rule made absolute. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/280-11crwp