1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1095 OF 2010 Santosh @ Lalit Kisan Dhumal ...Petitioner Vs. Ramkumar Dayashankar Sharma and Ors. ...Respondents ------ Mr.Krishna N. Kore and Ms. Rupali Dhivar for Petitioner Mr.S.R. Shinde - APP for State. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The grievance of the Applicant is that though an appeal filed by him against the order of externment dated 30.11.2009 and the appeal was finally heard by the Appellate Authority, no order has been passed so far. The Applicant, therefore, seeking a direction,directing the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal filed against the order of externment. The second grievance of the Applicant is that though he had asked for stay to the order of externment, no order was passed on the said application. 2 3. It is submitted that the show cause notice which was issued to the Applicant mentions why the Applicant should not be externed from five districts. It is submitted that the show cause notice, however, mentions about the prejudicial activities of the Applicant only in Kalyan Taluka. The Externing Authority has, however, by the impugned order asked him not to enter in the Thane and Greater Mumbai Districts. It is submitted that therefore, the said order which has been passed is based on an extraneous consideration. Secondly, it is submitted that out of the six cases which were mentioned in the said show cause notice, the Applicant has been released in two cases and other cases pertaining to kerosene, which was found in the room, which was given on rent by the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant was, therefore, not concerned with the commission of the said offence under the Essential of Commodities Act. The Applicant has produced the rent receipts before the competent authorities. So far as the case which was filed in 2009 is concerned, in the reply the Applicant has mentioned that the Complainant has given a statement on oath that the Applicant's name was wrongly mentioned. It is submitted that, however, the said reply has not been taken into consideration by the Externing Authority. 3 4. In my view, prima facie case is made out by the Applicant for grant of ad-interim relief till pending appeal. No reference is made about prejudicial activities of the Applicant in Greater Mumbai District. The reply given by the Complainant is not taken into consideration. In the result, the petition is allowed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously on merits and in accordance with law. 5. In the meantime, during pendency of the appeal, the impugned order passed by the Externing Authority on 30.11.2009 is stayed. 6. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.) 4