Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Externment Appeal No.12/2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4 issued a notice on 13.05.2015 stating therein that, why the petitioner should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, Beed, Osmanabad and Solapur Districts for the period of two years on the ground that the petitioner has indulged into various criminal activities causing danger and alarm to the public order. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice and denied the allegations and also filed documents supporting his contention that the show-cause-notice is issued under the pressure of political persons. On 31st March, 2016, respondent no.4 passed an order invoking the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, thereby externing the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Detention order, D.O. No.1/PCB/DP/Zone-X-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai on 3rd February, 2012. By this order it was directed that the petitioner be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (For short Act of 1981). Mr. C.D. Choudhari, under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) Mantralaya has filed affidavit dated 15th June, 2012 opposing the petition. Mr. Arup M. Patnaik, Commissioner of Police, respondent no.1 has filed affidavit opposing the petition. Additional affidavit is also filed by Mr. Patnaik being affidavit dated 17th August, 2012. 2. The Sponsoring Authority has based its recommendations for considering the case of the petitioner for detention on the basis of alleged involvement of the petitioner in the commission of an offence under Section 387 and 307 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner questions order of externment dated 10th March, 2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, externing him from Kopargaon, Sangamner, Shrirampur and Rahata in Ahmednagar district; Vaijapur in Aurangabad district and Yeola, Niphad and Sinnar in Nasik district, for a period of one year, confirmed by the Home Department on 11th June, 2012. 3. Smt.Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly accepts that by efflux of time, as one year has lapsed, nothing remains. However, she asserts, the petitioner has good ground to challenge the externment order, which qualifies to be an excessive and warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. According to her, the nature of operation in criminal activities of the petitioner is confined to Kopargaon and action of externing the petitioner from other talukas, referred above, violates his constitutional rights. 4. A s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(1)BomCR448
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule.2. By consent rule returnable forthwith. 3. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the State Minister (Home), Government of Maharashtra dated 15-5-1999. 4. Briefly stated, the petitioner was running a hotel in the name and style of M/s. Satyam Lodging and Boarding at Satyam Industrial Estate No. 2, Pokharan No. 1, Thane for which he had obtained Eating Registration Certificate No. 42 of 1981 and Lodging Licence No. 77 of 1981. It is stated that on 5-3-1997 the local police forcibly entered the hotel rooms occupied by decent persons and booked 2 cases against them. According to the petitioner some of the persons were so humiliated that they did not contest the cases booked against them under sections 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and preferred to pay fine. It is further stated that certain cases filed against the employees/staff of the petitioner hotel under provisions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(15)DRJ313
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) At the outset I may mention that this matter should have been listed as Criminal Writ because the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari seeking quashment of a notice issued under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act for taking action against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act. Mr. Vimla Mehta, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi had issued notice dated 13th May, 1986 under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act informing the petitioner that she has to be proceeded against under Section 47 of the Act and then the notice reproduces the allegation that since 1977 the petitioner has been committing acts and movements which are causing alarm, harm and danger to the residents of the localities of Mehrauli, Vasant Vihar and adjoining police.stations. It was also mentioned in the notice that the petitioner has been involved in 18 criminal cases, most of them are under the Punjab Excise Act, a faw under N.D.P.S. Act and one under Section 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)1GLR1
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioners were serving in the Security Force, a Branch in the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) Baroda, till 1972. Sometime during this year, Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), proposed to Management of IPCL that policy of the Central Government required security of CISF to protect --------------------------------------------------------- oted Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the Industries of the Government. Therefore, Security Force maintained by IPCL was sought to be inducted into CISF. When this proposal was conveyed to the employees of Security Force of IPCL, which included the petitioners and some other employees, induction was protested since it would cause injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners. It was stated that induction into CISF would mean transfer anywhere in India, which was neither conducive nor in the interest of the petitioners. Moreover, they had been engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Basic challenge in all these Petitions is to raid on or stoppage of vehicles transporting liquor by police personal functioning under Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the Police Act for short), as it is the commodity regulated by Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act for short). According to petitioners, only Prohibition Officer or the staff of State Excise Department functioning under the Prohibition Act, in terms thereof, can undertake any such exercise. In view of this submission, prayer made in all the writ petitions is to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered by police authorities. Home Department of State of Maharashtra, Superintendent of Police, concerned Police Station are joined as respondents. Similarly, Commissioner of State Excise is also impleaded as party respondent. 2. As a question of law is placed for consideration, individual facts are not very material and it will be apt to deal with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR390
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel: Shri R.W. Adik for the petitioner Arun Gavli and the Advocate-General Shri C.J. Sawant for the Respondents.2. This Petition was heard along with companion Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999 filed by Ramesh Jagdish Sharma for whom we have heard the learned Counsel Shri S.M. Gupte and the learned Advocate-General for the respondents. Since the petitions raised common questions of law, by consent, they were heard together. However, since the facts differ, they are disposed of by two separate Judgments. By consent, however, this Judgment will also cover the legal contentions that are raised in Criminal Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999.3. At the outset, we must indicate the questions of law which arise in the two petitions; one of Arun Gavli and the other of Ramesh Sharma. They are as under:-(i) Whether the protection of life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution includes a right in favour of a person like the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5401; 2006(1)KarLJ300
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are challenging the validity of the Licensing and Controlling of places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order 2005, published in the Karnataka Special Gazette dated 24th of May, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'order' for short). The 1st petitioner is an Association of persons who are conducting live band at different places in Bangalore City. The same has been registered on 27th April 2001. The copy of the Registration Certificate is produced as Annexure-B. The 1st petitioner Association is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The remaining petitioners are the persons who are running the Bar and Restaurants and entertaining their customers by playing live band music. On earlier occasions, the respondents were insisting that the persons who are conducting the live band should obtain licence under the Licensing and Controlling of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order 2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)IILLJ365Bom; 1973MhLJ39
Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench as it was stated by the Assistant Government Pleader before the learned single Judge that the question as to who is the head of the Police Department is a matter of general importance and an authoritative pronouncement of the High Court is necessary for the guidance of the Government. On that statement being made the appeal itself has been referred to a Division Bench. 2. The facts leading to this litigation are very few and are not in dispute. The respondent, original plaintiff, was a police constable attached to the Juna Rajawada Police Station at Kolhapur. While he was returning after seeing a cinema show in the night of August 15, 1959, he was accosted by the Officers and men of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. As he was smelling of alcohol he was produced before the Civil Surgeon and his blood was obtained for examination. The clinical examination showed that though the pupils were dilated and he was smelling of alcohol, ...
Tag this Judgment!