The High Court agreed with the petitioner and allowed the writ application quashing the appellate order as well as the initial extern ment order on this ground alone without going to the other questions.
At the time of the final hearing of the writ case before the High Court, four points were raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The State Government has challenged the High Court judgment in the present appeal.
The order stated that from 11.5.1980 the respondent was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of nar companyics and since he was involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation causing physical hurts to the residents of the locality on account of his suspicion that they were supplying information to the police about his illegal activities, witnesses were number willing to companye forward and depose against him.
From the judgment and Order dated 24.2.1987 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
205 of 1989.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. 1.
67 of 1986.
During the pendency of the writ application the State Government dismissed, the re spondents appeal by a short order The writ petitioner thereafter challenged the appellate order also in the pend ing writ case.
W.P.No.
Syed Ali Ahmad, Tanweer Ahmad, Mohan Pandey and Ms. J. Ahmed for the Respondent.
M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
He filed an appeal under Section 60 of the Act and while the appeal was pending he moved the Bombay High Court with a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Special leave granted.
The respondent was served with an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act hereinaf ter referred to as the Act directing him to leave the districts of Aurangabad and Jalna for a period of two years.
