HC rejects plea challenging externment of Nashik resident
The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition challenging externment of a Nashik resident, saying the externing authority had exercised its powers within the parameters of law and hence no interference was called for in the externment proceedings.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition challenging externment of a Nashik resident, saying the externing authority had exercised its powers within the parameters of law and hence no interference was called for in the externment proceedings.
"In view of this, we are not inclined to allow the petition," said a bench of justices Prakash Naik and Naresh Patil while upholding the externment of Pankaj Shimpi from Nashik for a year, in a judgement delivered recently.
Externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by an Assistant Commissioner of police of Nashik who issued a show cause notice to him on November 13 last year. Shimpi was given an opportunity to give a reply and defend himself which he did.
The case was then referred to DCP who also issued a notice to the petitioner. In this notice, it was stated that the petitioner had committed several acts and offences which were causing harm, alarm and danger to lives and properties of the citizens.
The notice further stated that due to certain acts of his?terror,?the?witnesses?are?not?willing?to?come?forward?to? depose against?him?openly.?It also mentioned that he was allegedly involved in criminal cases including a murder case.
The notice also said that statements of two witnesses recorded in-camera had also implicated him in certain criminal activities.
The petitioner, however, denied his involvement in criminal activities and said he had been acquitted in the muder case registered against him. This material had not been taken into consideration while issuing externment order against him, the petitioner pleaded.
In the order of externment, it was mentioned that the externing?authority?is?satisfied?that?the?acts?and?movements? of?the externee are causing harm, alarm and danger to lives and property of people in Ambad and Nashik cities and that it was necessary to initiate externment process against him.
Accordingly, the petitioner was externed from Nashik city for a period of one year. Being aggreived, he filed an appeal before the Nashik Divisional Commissioner who rejected the plea. He then moved the Bombay High Court challenging the externment order.
After perusing documents, the Court noted that it was satisfied that a case was made out against the petitioner for externing him from Nashik for a period of one year.