1 APL 574.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2011 Mr. Umakant Kisan Rathod. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. V.S. Tadke for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 21st OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant Umakant. His contention is, the initial notice dated 27th December 2919 purported to be issued under Section 59 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 is short of informing the requisitions and also compliance of Section 55 of the said Act. The learned Counsel submits, the two offences referred arising out of Crime Nos. 16 of 1984, 193 of 1989 and 206 of 2008 are disposed of while the last is not yet ready. 2. The learned Counsel submits, the contemplated action of the Police by notice dated 4.6.2011 calls for interference. 2 APL 574.11.sxw 3. The learned APP has tendered the original proceedings conducted before the Superintendent of Police, Solapur Rural Division, Solapur which informed that the Applicant was appraised to appear before the authorities concerned time to time. On 22.6.2011 he appeared and explained to the learned Superintendent as to why he should not be externed and the matter was indeed kept for orders. In between, on 30th June 2011, the Applicant Umakant approached this Court challenging the above referred notice without informing this Court that the matter is substantially heard by the learned Superintendent of Police, the Externing Authority and was pending for orders. He succeeded ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). 4. Such exercise by the Accused/Applicant needs to be deprecated. The reference given by the Applicant about three cases having been terminated is inconsequential as the notice issued against him is under section 55 of the Bombay Police Act which deals with contemplated action in respect of persons, who forms group or gang and such bodies of the person. The notice at page 13 refers, the Applicant Umakant, other persons Rupla Kisan Rathod, third Kashinath Rathod and three others. The crime numbers to which reference is given is collective between the Applicant Umakant and other persons referred therein. Consequently, claim of acquittal of other cases is irrelevant as Crime No.206 of 2008 is pending. Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 3 APL 574.11.sxw 5. The observations are restricted to the contentions raised. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Superintendent of Police again on 15th November 2011 to make out his case in response to the questioned notice dated 4.6.2011 and the Externment Authority, after hearing the Applicant, is at liberty to pass appropriate order. 6. With the above observations, Application dismissed. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)