On a companysideration of the explanation and the evidence tendered by the appellant, the Dy.
witnesses to refute the, allegations.
He companytended that the allegations were vague and general, that they were made at the instance of one Damayanti Deshpande who was inimical to him, that he was a social worker of some standing, that he was, a member of the Congress Party and that in two criminal cases which were filed against him he was acquitted in spite of the evidence led by the prosecution.
That you companymit robberies by extorting money and articles from the residents of the aforesaid localities and areas by means of assault and or under threats of assault which are offences punishable under chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
in Criminal Application No.
Against that order, the appellant filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act, to the 2nd respondent, the Government of Maharashtra, but that appeal was dismissed on May 20, 1971, have with the modification that the externment was to be effective from May 31, 1971.
Later, the appellant was heard by Shri G. K. Nadkarni, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Greater Bombay.
in Criminal Applications 30 and 93 of 1970 decided on February 23, 1970 by Tulzapurkar J. in 73 Bombay Law Reporter 442 at pp.
453 454 and by Bhasme and Kania JJ.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 11, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
487 of 1972 in this Court, one of the grounds stated therein being that the externment order was void because the externee was asked to remove himself number only out of the district of Greater Bombay but from the limits of Thana district as will.
14 of 1972.
Rama Niwas, Nariman Road, Vile Parle East , Bombay 57.
As against the judgment last mentioned the externee had filed special leave petition No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
149 of 1972 decided on March 3, 1972.
Commissioner passed an order dated July 23, 1970 under section 59 of the Act, externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay and the District of Thana, for a period of two years.
Application No.
The appellant then filed a petition in the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order of externment.
618 of 1971.
The appellant appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, offered his explanation and examined 16.
C. Bhandare and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 11, 1971 of the High Court at Bombay, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge an order of externment passed by the 1st respondent.
On October 9, 1969 a numberice of even date was served on the appellant under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951, asking him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, M Division, Bombay, in answer to allegations companytained in the numberice.
B. Wad, for the appellant.
Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bom.
The State Government also ought to have given reasons in support of the order dismissing the appeal.
The order of externment was directed to take effect within two days of the decision of two criminal cases which were then pending against the appellant and in case he was sentenced in the aforesaid cases to a term of imprisonment, the order was to take effect within two days from the date of his release from jail.
CI/73 alarm and danger to the residents of certain localities within the, jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station, that he was given to assaulting the residents of those localities either because, they were suspected to be, police informants or because they failed to accede to the demands of money, that he had companymitted robberies in the particular localities, that since March 1969 he had companymitted several acts of the above description and that witnesses were number willing to companye forward to depose against him in public.
Briefly, the allegations were that the appellantsacts and movements were causing harm, 6 L63lSup.
