1 16.wp.288-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2011 Smt.Asha Mayala Sunnar. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.Amol Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Only two contentions have been pressed before us. The first argument is that the Authority who has issued show-cause notice was aware of the fact that the Petitioner has already been acquitted in relation to one of the offences referred to in the show-cause notice. The second contention is that the show-cause notice refers to offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 which cannot be made the basis to proceed under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act 1951 as the said offences are not referred to therein. PPD 2 16.wp.288-11 2. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, it is open to the Petitioner to pursue the same before the concerned Authority. We say so because it is not the case of the Petitioner that he has been acquitted in respect of all the offences referred to in the show-cause notice. If the Petitioner is acquitted in one of the offences that by itself cannot be ground to quash the show-cause notice as a whole. The Petitioner will have to pursue his remedy before the Appropriate Authority in response to the said show-cause notice. All questions in that behalf are left open. 3. With regard to the second contention, the same seems to be attractive at the first blush, however, what is lost sight of by the Petitioner, is that, there are other offences referred to in the show- cause notices which admittedly fall under Chapter XII, XVI & XVII of the Code. The same can be the basis to initiate action under Section 56 of the Act. Even this is a matter which will have to be agitated before the concerned Authority. We are not inclined to quash the show-cause notice on this contention. 4. It is lastly argued that the Petitioner is not keeping good health and the order of externment, if passed, would cause serious 3 16.wp.288-11 miscarriage of justice and inconvenience to the Petitioner. We are not impressed by such argument, more so, considering the limited controversy that is required to be considered by us as to whether the show-cause notice ought to be quashed in exercise of Writ jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, this Petition fails and the same is dismissed with above observations. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)