Observing that principles of natural justice had not been followed, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of externment issued by Maharashtra Government against a Nashik resident restraining him from entering the pilgrim city for a period of two years.
20-year-old Karan Ramesh Ghuge filed a petition challenging an order dated 24th December, 2012 passed under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Police externing him from the limits of Nashik City and Nashik Rural for a period of two years. This order was confirmed by the appellate authority on March 22, 2013.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is based upon extraneous material of which no notice was given to him. He also claimed that in-camera statements of witnesses were vague, in as much as the dates on which they were recorded were not disclosed, resulting in causing prejudice to his defence.
The prosecutor, however, argued that reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to meet the case against him and that the show-cause notice issued to him disclosed in sufficient details, the allegations against him.
The prosecutor said the petitioner's activities were found to be prejudicial to the peace and harmony of the society and that there was a reasonable apprehension that he would again engage himself in perpetrating violent acts against the peace loving members of the society.
Justices S C Dharmadhikari and S B Shukre, however, noted that in the impugned order there was a mention of two crimes registered against the petitioner namely, Crime Nos 31/2011 and 333/2011 and some allegations made against him by two witnesses (a) & (b) that he had committed certain acts of violence against them.
The court noted that these crime numbers as well the general nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner by these two witnesses did find a mention in the show-cause notice, but, what was lacking in the notice was something which went to the root of the whole matter.
The places of occurrence of the alleged incidents, as stated by witnesses (a) & (b), were not mentioned specifically in the show cause notice, the judges said.
