1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2009 Rafiq S/o Burhan Shaikh } Age : 21 Years, Occ. : Tailor, } R/o : Kazi Baba Road, } Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. State of Maharashtra } Through Secretary, } Home Department, } Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. The Sub Divisional Officer } Shrirampur Sub Division, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 3. The Deputy Superintendent } of Police, Shrirampur } Division, Shrirampur, Dist. } Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS Shri. S.S.Sayyad, Advocate. for Applicant. Shri. V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for the State. 2 [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 10/06/2009 ------------------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri. S.S.Sayyad, counsel appearing for applicant and Shri. V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. Petitioner is raising exception to the order of externment passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur on 1/9/2008 directing the petitioner to remove himself out of Ahmednagar district for period of one year from the date of passing of the order. The order is passed in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act. The proceedings were initiated on issuance of notice calling on petitioner to show cause as to why order U/s 55 shall not be passed against him, in the year 2007. It is alleged that the petitioner is implicated in 3 offences. One offence bearing Crime No. 110/1997 is under Sections 143,147,149 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, whereas another incidence cited is in respect of Crime No. 134/2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, whereas third instance is in respect of Crime No. 69/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. So far as offence at Sr.No. 1 is concerned, the same pertains to the year 1997 and it could 3 have no relevance for initiating action after lapse of 10 years. Similarly, so far as Crime alleged to have been committed in the year 2001, is concerned, it has been stated that petitioner was prosecuted and has been held guilty by trial court. The petitioner has preferred an Appeal in this Court and he has been directed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of Appeal. The said offence also pertains to the year 2001 and no inference can be drawn on the strength of registration of the offence in the year 2001 that the petitioner is continuously engaged in activities , which are detrimental to the society at large. 2. So far as crime registered in the year 2007 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was one of the accused involved in the Crime along with many other persons. The incidence is in respect of fight between two groups. The sole incidence in respect of registration of offence of the year 2007 also can not be the basis for passing prohibitory order taking recourse to Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act. In identical circumstances, one of the externee, against whom an order of externment came to be passed , has approached this Court by presenting Criminal Writ Petition No. 153 of 2009. This Court after extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, has directed quashment of the order so far it relates to said petitioner. The petitioner in Criminal Writ 4 Petition No. 153 of 2009 was also stated to be involved in Crime No. 69 of 2007 and he has been externed by the common order which also directs removal of petitioner herein out of Ahmednagar District. In this view of the matter, for the reasons recorded in Criminal Writ Petition No. 153 of 2009, instant Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed. It has also been brought to my notice that against some of the externees who were also directed to remove themselves in view of common order issued under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, along with petitioner herein approached this Court by presenting different petitions and this Court while entertaining the petitions, , directed quashment of order of externment issued against them. The petitioner also deserves to be treated similarly. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur on 1/9/2008 and confirmed by the State Government on 6/3/2009 stands quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIWP317.09