1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2003 Prakash s/o Ramrao Bodkhe, Age 33 years, Occu.Business, R/o Ulkanagari, Jawahar Colony Road, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Division, Aurangabad 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Parimandal), Office of Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 26th OCTOBER 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 1.7.2002 passed by respondent No.3 and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003 issued by respondent No.4 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed. Certain interim reliefs are also sought to which we shall advert shortly. 2. It appears that initially an order came to be passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act and on the basis of the said order show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003 came to be issued to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be externed. Upon passing of the order dated 1.7.2002, the petitioner had filed the present petition and during the pendency of the said petition the show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003 came to be issued. The petitioner accordingly amended the writ petition and incorporated the challenge to the show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003. The Division Bench of this Court while hearing this writ petition for admission, by its order dated 13.11.2003 issued Rule and granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (C) to the petition. By virtue of prayer clause (C) to the petition the petitioner has 3 prayed for stay to the operation, implementation and other proceedings initiated by respondents on the basis of the order dated 1.7.2002 and also prayed for grant of interim stay to the show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003. We are informed that since then i.e. since 13.11.2003 the interim relief has been operating and the proceedings of the notice have been stayed. 3. Normally, this Court would be extremely slow in entertaining the petition challenging the issuance of show-cause notice. However, the Division Bench of this Court upon consideration of the merits of the matter issued Rule and granted interim stay to the show-cause notice by its order dated 13.11.2003. Since stay has been operating now for practically for more than seven years, according to us the petition deserves to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner deserve to be granted to the petitioner. On account of passage of time the authorities may not now consider it expedient and in the interest of justice to decide the show-cause notice. We, therefore, allow this petition only on the ground that the interim relief has been operating since 13.11.2003 by which the proceedings of the show-cause notice have been stayed. We, accordingly, allow this petition and quash and set aside the order dated 1.7.2002 issued by respondent No.3 as well as the show-cause notice dated 2.8.2003. Since we have allowed the petition only on this ground, 4 we are not adverted to the challenges, if any raised in the petition in respect of the merits of the matter. 4. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/479.03criwp)