Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayed that the impugned order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal and order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Officer on Special Duty in Appeal No.235/2011 be quashed and set aside. 3. The petitioner is the aggrieved person against whom action under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1950 has been taken by the respondents, whereas respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the Appellate authority which has passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 confirming the order passed by the lower authority and the respondent No.3 is the Sub-Divisional Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR43
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service as violative of provisions of section 26 of the Bombay Police Act and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that while the petitioner was working as Police Constable in Nashik Police Commissionarate, he was deputed to guard an accused named Bakhtiyar Khan, who was undergoing treatment in Civil Hospital at Nashik. While the accused was under the guard of the petitioner and some other Constables he was escaped from the Civil Hospital, Nashik. The responsibility, according to the police department, was with the petitioner and other Constables who acted obviously negligently and therefore they were suspended and thereafter on 11-3-1993 an order was passed discharging the petitioner from the police service. The order on the face of it is one passed under Article 311, Clause (2)(b) of the Constitution. The order of discharge states that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(1)BomCR219
ORDER1. A common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, disposing of the Criminal Revision Nos. 77 and 76 of 1983 rejecting both of these revisions has been challenged in these applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C.2. Facts giving rise to these special applications may be briefly stated as follows; The complainant Pralhad Namdeo Yekade is a resident of Nandura in Malkapur tahsil of the Buldana district. Vithal Kharat (petitioner in Criminal Application No. 160 of 1986) and Ashok B. Pawar (petitioner in Criminal Application No. 152 of 1986) were serving in the Constabulary attached to the Nandura Police Station in or about the year 1982. On 30th August, 1982 which happened to be a Ganesh Chaturthi day, the policemen attached to the Nandura Police Station were on their usual rounds. They were in their official uniform. In the afternoon at about 6 p.m. the complainant Pralhad was on the Ota of his house. Adjacent to the O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 3/6-09-2012 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereby refusing to grant licence to start and run the Social Club/Card Room in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts leading to file this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under:- The petitioner is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 with the aim and object to open Social Club for amusement of its members. The petitioner herein, is the original appellant in appeal filed before respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said appeal was filed challenging the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.1 herein, is the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respondent No. 2 is the Minister for Department of Home, Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR714; (1996)98BOMLR285; 1996CriLJ3144
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Parshurami, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service for the Respondents. By consent. Rule called out for hearing and heard. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of a restaurant run in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Gopika at Panvel in District Raigad. The Petitioner held licences for running an eating house under the Bombay Police Act, for serving liquor therein under the Bombay Prohibition Act and also for providing 'entertainment' in the eating house. 3. The Petitioner was served with Show Cause Notice dated 16th January, 1996 in which it is alleged against him that there were at least 21 previous cases registered against him for different offences under the Prohibition Act during the period 18th May, 1994 to 11th September, 1995, out of which 16 cases were pending in the Court and in 5 cases, the accused concerned had pleaded guilty and were fined by the Court in various sums of money. It was further alleged that on 15th January, 1996...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR811
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. These are three petitions out of a group of petitions wherein the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Cases launched against them or for directions not to prosecute. For the purpose of convenience out of these 3 petitions chosen, one is one from Mumbai and the others are from Thane. The facts in the Mumbai case are similar to all other cases.3. Bare facts which are essential for deciding the issues in controversy need to be stated, which are as follows:-In Writ Petition No. 700 of 1998, it is the case of the petitioner, that he is conducting Video Parlors since 1987 at various places in Mumbai. One such parlour was raided by the Police attached to Malwani Police Station on 27th April, 1998 at about 5.30 p. m. A case has been filed against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 42nd Court, Borivali, being L.A.C. Case No. 788 of 1998. It is alleged by the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.S. Shinde, J. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 17th August, 2012 passed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.Ext.112 of 2012 as well as order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Region-2, Bhiwandi, District : Thane, in Case No.Externment/SR/97/2012, thereby externing the Petitioner from Thane District for a period of one year under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that from last several years he is working for Republican Party of India. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 by Report dated 8th August, 2011 informed the Respondent No.2 herein that, the movements and acts of the Petitioner are causing harm to the Society and the Petitioner has committed the offence under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said Report, the Respondent No.4 has requested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment dated 27th September, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune in Externment Case No.19 of 2011, which is confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide its order dated 10th April, 2012 passed in Appeal No.EXT-2012/14/Spl.3-(A). 2. The Respondent No.1 herein was pleased to issue notice under Bombay Police Act, 1951 to the Petitioner on 13th August, 2012. The Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.1 and gave his reply. On 27th September, 2011, the Respondent No.2 herein was pleased to issue the impugned order of externment under the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of externment, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed on 10th April, 2012. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Though the number of grounds a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order of externment dated 7th May 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police by which the Petitioner has been ordered to be externed from Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban Districts. The order is purportedly passed under Section 56(A) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. We may note here that the learned APP has pointed out that there is an error while mentioning the Section and the order shall be treated as the one passed under Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the State Government. 3. An order under clause (a) or (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 can be passed only after recording a subjective satisfaction that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public for the reasons set out in Sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1988Bom334; (1987)89BOMLR612
Pendse, J. 1. The respondents are a firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act and carry on business of dealing in liquors, wines and spirits. The respondents import Indian made foreign liquor into Greater Bombay and most of the imports are made from the State of Punjab. The respondents import diverse quantities of cases of Indian made foreign liquor from the manufacturers from time to lime under the import passes issued under Maharashtra Import and Export of Liquor Rules, 1963. The respondents have secured licence to import the liquor and store the same in their bonded warehouse situate at Tejoriwalla Building, Corner of Grant Road, Bombay, in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964. The Government of Bombay enacted the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of and carrying into effect the policy of prohibition and also the Abkari la...
Tag this Judgment!