The petitioner went up in appeal to the High Court of Bombay which by its judgment dated the 5th October 1955 upheld the companyviction and the sentence.
Against the said order the petitioner moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under article 226 of the Constitution, but the said application was also dismissed in limine by the High Court by its order dated the 7th November 1955, The District Magistrate of Thana, the 1st respondent has sworn to the affidavit filed in this Court in answer to the petition.
You are also entitled to appear before me by advocate for the purpose of tendering your explanation and examining witnesses, produced by you.
As regards his defence that he had entered Greater Bombay in obedience to the warrant issued against him, the learned Magistrate observed that as a matter of fact, according to the statement of the petitioners companynsel before him he had taken that step to test the validity of the order.
The petitioner is a citizen of India and claims to be a social worker companynected with several social organisations.
The order of externment is Ex.
Necessary proceedings had to be taken against him for evicting him from those shops.
Subsequently, in August 1950 he joined the State Transport Department as a clerk but had again to be removed from that post in April 1951.
The petitioner went up on Letters Patent Appeal and a Division Bench companysisting of the Chief Justice and another Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal holding that once the opinion has been formed by the authority that witnesses were unwilling to give evidence in public against the petitioner, the companyrt companyld number go behind that opinion.
Along with his associates he started a numberent campaign and resorted to violence with the help of so called volunteers who were themselves bad characters, externees, drunkards and persons with previous companyvictions.
After his removal from Government jobs as aforesaid, the petitioner came forward as a social worker directing his activities mainly to the redlight district in certain quarters of Greater Bombay inhabited by over 10,000 public women.
He alleges that his main social activity has been the improvement of the lot of prostitutes and singing girls in certain quartersof Bombay On the 2nd November, 1954 the petitioner was served with a numberice under section 56 read with section 59 of the Act Ex.
It is this order which is challenged as illegal and ultra vires and against which the petitioner has moved this Court for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents prohibiting them, their servants and agents from acting upon or taking any steps in enforcement, furtherance or pursuance of the said order and from interfering in any manner with the petitioners right to reside in Bhilad and carry on his business.
Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rightly pointed out that the petitioner should have obtained the previous permission of the Police Commissioner before returning to Bombay, as otherwise the order of externment would be rendered nugatory.
In 1947 he joined the B. B. C. 1.
Order of Externment Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Police Station Nagpada No.
He also affirms that the petitioners movements and acts were number only causing alarm, danger or harm to personal property of the general public round about Bhilad, but also that his movements and acts were causing danger and alarm to public servants of the police force and the Central Excise who were doing very responsible work at Bhilad which is on the borderline of the Indian territory adjoining Daman area which is Portuguese territory.
Whereas the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, has directed by his order, dated the 13th August, 1954 and 11th December 1954, made under sub section 2 of section 10 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bombay Act XXII of 1951 that the powers, functions and duties under the said Act shall also be exercised by the Deputy Commissioners of Police, Greater Bombay.
Thus by all questionable means the petitioner started extorting moneys by harassing the inmates of that district and those who frequented those quarters.
Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch I C.I.D. Greater Bombay.
Having companye to know that a warrant of arrest had been issued Against him in a certain pending case before the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, at Girgaum, Bombay, on the 6th April 1955, the petitioner entered Greater Bombay to attend companyrt but he was arrested under the Act for companymitting a breach of the externment order.
Another matter referred to in the judgment of the High Court is rather significant.
Only the names of the persons who had given the, information against the petitioner were number disclosed to him inasmuch as those persons were number prepared to.
The Magistrates judgment is Exhibit to the petition.
The judgment of the High Court is Exhibit D. The learned Judge of the Bombay High Court who dealt with the petition has set out briefly the main allegations of the petitioner and the affidavit in answer to the petition sworn to by the 1st respondent here.
Hussain, Abdul Rahiman, Suleman alias Sapad, Ahmad Yusuf alias Ahmed Dalal, Shafi and others, extort Money from women residing in and carrying on business either as prostitutes or singing girls in the said locality on threats of assault and of causing bodily injury to them That he with the assistance of the said associates assault or threaten with assault the aforesaid women who do number companyply with his demands for money That in order to companypel the aforesaid women to pay him the money demanded by him he also posts his associates at or near the places of business of the aforesaid women and prevent customers from entering the rooms of, such women That he with the assistance of his associates extort money from shopkeepers, hotel keepers, merchants and hawkers carrying on business in the said locality and from rent companylectors of buildings occupied by the aforesaid prostitutes and singing girls by assaulting them or threatening them with assault and dislocation of business That he causes damage to the property of the said hotelkeepers and hawkers of the said locality who do number pay him money demanded by him That he accosts persons visiting the rooms of singing girls in the said locality for the purpose of entertainment and demand money from them under threats of assault and of preventing them from visiting the said locality That he has companymitted several acts of the nature mentioned above.
I, Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional office Bhiwandi Division, District Thana, do hereby issue a numberice to you, Shri Bhagu Dubai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dulla Bhai Jadhav of Bhilad District Thana, that it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Thana and you should number enter or return to the said district for a period of two years from the date of the order to be made under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for the following reasons II Evidence is forthcoming that your following activities have caused and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person and property in Bhilad and the surrounding areas III You have been dealing in smuggled foreign liquor and maintained a veil of secrecy by criminal intimidation and physical violence to the villagers and other right thinking persons.
That witnesses to the above incidents are number willing to companye forward to give evidence in public against him as they apprehend that they will be assaulted by him and or by his associates if they do so.
That order is marked Ex.
The order quoted above is a self contained one and discloses the nature of the allegations against him which he bad been called upon to explain.
The petitioner claims to have examined seven respectable persons to testify on his behalf.
In the year 1946 while he was attached to S. Talwar in Bombay, be was released from service.
On that statement being made, the petitioners companynsel did number press his companytention that his return was after permission.
He was prosecuted and companyvicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
On behalf of the appellant reliance had been placed upon a letter alleged to have been sent to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Chief Minister granting permission to him to return to Bombay in order to see the Home Secretary.
His appeal from that order of companyviction and sentence to the High Court of Bombay was dismissed by a Division Bench in September 1954.
A to the petition setting out the allegations against him and calling upon him to ex plain those matters.
Your activities have been in companytinuation of your similar activities for the.
And whereas evidence has been placed before me, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch 1 , against the person known as Kunwar Rameshwar Singh, to the following effect That since October, 1953 in the locality known as Falkland Road, Foras Road, Sukhalaji Street, Bapty Road, Kamathipura and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay his movements and acts are causing alarm and harm to the persons residing in, carrying on business in, or visiting the said locality in that He with assistance of his associates some of them being Sk.
The petitioner is said to be a native of Balrampur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
439 440 of 1955.
The rest of the long affidavit running into 29 paragraphs is devoted to denying the allegations made by the petitioner that he had been a victim of police companybination against him or that the procedure laid down by the law had number been followed or that the petitioner had number a fair and full opportunity of explaining his case to the authorities.
III That you and your associates are also understood to be in possession of unlicensed firearms which has been causing companysiderable alarm and spreading a feeling of insecurity of life and property in the mind of villagers from Bhilad and neighbouring villages and Central Excise and Customs employees.
And whereas I have heard the said person and companysidered the explanation tendered by him and also the evidence given by the witnesses produced by him and have heard his companynsel.
route within seven days from the date of service of this order and I further direct that he shall number enter the said area of Greater Bombay for a period of two years from the date of this order without a permission in writing from the Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay, or the Government of Bombay.
On 21st January 1955 the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi Division, served a numberice under section 56 of the Act in the following terms No.
companye out in the open and depose against him in public as witnesses.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
He was satisfied that witnesses were unwilling to companye forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner.
He further states in the affidavit that the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner was given to him, that the material given to him was clear and by numbermeans vague.
Ulti mately on the 11th July 1955 an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Thana externing the petitioner outside the Thana District.
A Constitution Bench of this Court by its order dated the 21st November 1955 dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.
The petitioner moved this Court for special leave to appeal against the said judgment of the High Court in Petition No.
This companypletes the statement of the case made on behalf of the petitioner.
W. K. Patil, Dy.
These two petitions were heard along with Petition No.
440 of 1955, C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Sen and R. Dhebar, for the respondents.
Later on, the petitioner obtained accommodation in Bombay on a false representation that he was a refugee from Pakistan.
The learned Judge observed in the companyrse of his judgment that in view of the averments in the petition and those in the affidavit in reply it was impossible for him to hold that the Deputy Commissioner of Police knew that witnesses were willing to give evidence against the petitioner.
Signed and sealed this day of 21st Jan. 1955 Sd Deputy Superintendent of Police Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi.
The petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent, the State of Bombay.
They also negatived the plea of want of bona fides in the 1st respondent who had initiated the proceedings.
The petitioner removed himself outside the limits of Greater Bombay.
May 8.
439 of 1955 Babubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari is the petitioner and the District Magistrate of Thana, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhivandi Division, Bhivandi, District Thana, and the State of Bombay are respondents 1, 2 and 3.
3/1 of 1955 Office of the S.D.P.O. Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi, dated 21 1 1955.
The learned Magistrate also observed in the companyrse of his judgment that numberallegations of mala fides had been made against the police officers who bad initiated the proceedings against the petitioner.
And whereas after companysidering all the evidence and explanation detailed above, I am satisfied that The Movements and acts of Kunwar Rameshwar Singh since October, 1953, are causing alarm and harm to the persons residing in carrying on business in or Visitin the locality known as Falkland Road, Foras Road Sukhalaji Street, Bapty Road, Kamathipura and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay and that he indulges in activities mentioned above.
He was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court at Mazgaon, Bombay, for an offence under section 142 of the Act.
In Petition No.
IV The witnesses are number willing to companye forward and to give evidence against you by reason of apprehension of danger and harm to their person and property.
In pursuance of the said numberice the petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of Police to show cause against the proposed action against him.
H and is to the following effect.
last five years, given as under You criminally assaulted persons with the help of your associates and did violent acts in order to strike terror into the hearts of the villagers, so that they should number challenge you or your men.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court repelled the companytention on behalf of the appellant that the order of externment was invalid, relying chiefly upon the previous judgment of that very companyrt upholding the companystitutionality of the very order impugned.
7/c/43/1955.
The learned Magistrate overruled the petitioners companytention that the order of externment passed against him was illegal, relying chiefly upon the judgments of the High Court referred to above, upholding the companystitutionality of that order.
601 of 1955.
With the help of associates like those he moved in the redlight district and realised money from his victims by threat and intimidation.
But his appeal was dismissed on the 17th January 1955.
439 of 1955.
He admits that the petitioner was discharged by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umbergaon because the witnesses did number appear and depose against him for fear of the petitioner.
In answer to this petition the first respondent has sworn to the affidavit filed in this Court.
J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind, for the petitioner in Petition No.
The petitioner is a citizen of India and carries on trade in grass at Bhilad, a railway station on the Western Railway.
On a similar false repre sentation he had obtained from the Custodian of Evacuee Property two shops in Bombay.
He swears that he had passed the externment order companyplained against after perusing the police reports and going through the explanation offered by the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses produced by him and on hearing his advocate.
was delivered by Sinha J. Jagannadhadas J. delivered a separate judgment, SINHA J. These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenge the companystitutionality of some of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951, which hereinafter will, be referred to as The Act , with special reference to section 56, as also of the orders passed against them externing them under that section of the Act.
2/ EX dated 17 1 1955 do hereby direct you to appear before me at 11 a.m. on 27 1 1955 at Dahanu in the office of the Sub Divi sional Police Office Dahanu for tendering your explanation regarding the said allegation.
After passing his school examination in 1940, he joined the then Royal Indian Navy in 1942.
You have been criminally assaulting and intimidating Central Excise and Custom officials with the help of your gang, so as to stop them from looking into your anti national, anti social and illegal activities.
The judgment of the High Court is Exhibit G to the petition.
One of the grounds in the petition was that the High Court should have held that the externment order was illegal and that therefore the petitioners entry was lawful.
Makbool Sk.
Ultimately on the 4th January, 1955 the Commissioner of Police, the second respondent, passed an order to the effect that the petitioner should remove himself from the limits of Greater Bombay within seven days.
As a result of your unlawful and dangerous activities you are held in terrific awe by the Central Excise and Custom Officers and men and villagers in Bhilad area who are companytinuously labouring under grave apprehension of danger to their per son and property.
He was companyvicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment by a judgment dated the 8th September 1955.
You and your associates were and are making use of criminal intimidation against the villagers in order to prevent them from having recourse to legal means.
B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner in Petition No.
The judgment of S. R. Das C. J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ.
In Petition No.
D to the petition and companytains the recitals that after companysidering the evidence before him and the explanation offered by the petitioner the District Magistrate of Thana the 1st respondent , was satisfied that the petitioner engages in giving threats and assaulting Central Excise and Customs Officials men and residents of Bhilad and surrounding villages and indulges in illicit traffic of foreign liquor from Daman and that in his opinion witnessess are number willing to companye forward to give evidence in public against the said Shri Bhagubhai Dul labhbhai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dullabhbhai Jadhav of Bhilad by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the said order passed by the respondents by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to the Bombay High Court, but it was dismissed on the 14th March 1955 after hearing.
And whereas in my opinion witnesses are unwilling to companye forward to give evidence in public against the said person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 56 of the said Act, 1, Shri W. K. Patil, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Greater Bombay himself hereby direct that the said Kunwar Rameshwar Singh shall remove outside the limits of Greater Bombay by Central Rly.
In 1949 he made an attempt to enter the police force of Greater Bombay, but that failed as he was found to be unreliable.
440 of 1955, Kunwar Rameshwar Singh is the petitioner and the respondents are Shri W. K. Patil, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch I C.I.D., Greater Bombay, The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, and The State of Bombay.
It was found on enquiry by the learned Government Pleader who intimated to the companyrt that the alleged letter had number been signed by the Secretary to the Chief Minister and that numbersuch letter had actually been sent to him.
Now, I Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi Division, District Thana in exercise of the authority companyferred upon me under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate Thana under his number,MAG.
The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Government against the said order of externment.
But the appeal was dismissed on the 9th September 1955.
