1 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2024 1. Sagar s/o. Kishor Sarvade, Age 25 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o. HUDCO Colony, Latur, Taluka and District Latur 2. Bandu s/o. Vasant Madale, Age 26 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur 3. Shaikh Khaled Shabbir, Age 36 years, Occu. Labourer, Anand Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur 4. Laxman s/o. Apparao Waghmare, Age 39 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur 5. Sanjay s/o. Shrimant Yadav, Agge 60 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o. Moti Nagar, Latur .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra The Superintendent of Police, Latur, District Latur 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad 3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Latur Sub-Division, Latur 4. The Police Inspector, Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur 2025:BHC-AUG:15621 2 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt Mr. Amolkumar S. Wakode, Advocate for Petitioners : Smt. A. S. Deshukh, APP for Respondents ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2024 Sanjay Bhanudas Gaikwad, Age 45 years, Occu. Labour, R/o. Boudha Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Superintendent of Police, Latur, Taluka and District Latur 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Tq. and Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar .. Respondents Mr. Krushna S. Solanke, Advocate for Petitioners; Smt. A. S. Deshukh, APP for Respondents CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 18-06-2025 PER COURT:- 1. Since in both the petitions the order under challenge is the same, the petitions are being taken together for decision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State by consent taken up for final dispoal. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order/s passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner in Appeal, dated 10.12.2024 and 11.11.2024, respectively rejecting 3 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt the appeals filed by the petitioners and confirming the orders dated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No.1 Superintendent of Police. 4. The facts in short are that a proposal was sent for taking action of externment against the petitioners and five others. Pursuant to the proposal, notices were served by respondent No.1. After hearing, an action of externment was taken only against present petitioners. The petitioners came to be externed from entire district Latur for three months by order dated 23.09.2024. 5. It is observed in the order that there are 41 offences pending against the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2058 of 2024 and 2 offences against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2008 of 2024 pending with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur for the offence punishable under Section 12-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. The authority also recorded the statements of two witnesses, who were not willing to disclose their identity. The officer, thus, considering the material was satisfied that order of externment needs to be passed and passed the order. 6. In the appeals, the said order came to be confirmed. Petitioners are, therefore, before this Court. 7. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that there is no material appearing against the 4 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt petitioners to take action of externment. Though 41 offences are shown against petitioner Sanjay Bhanudas Gaikwad, he is not convicted in a single trial. All the cases were pending on the date of passing the order. The case under Section 12-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act cannot be said to be sufficient to take action of externment. The maximum punishment for the said section is three months or fine of Rs.300/-. There is no specific observation made by the Superintendent of Police as to what made him to come to conclusion that action of externment is necessary. The offences are registered only in one police station and still the action is taken of externment, externing the petitioners from the entire district Latur. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, pray for allowing the writ petitions. They relied upon the judgment in the case of Raees Rashid Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2022, dated 25.03.2022. 8. The learned A.P.P. has strenuously argued that the activities of the petitioner are such that the Superintendent of Police was required to take action. Though there is no conviction recorded till passing of the order, but the volume of all complaints shows the gravity of the situation and the conduct of petitioner – Sanjay Gaikwad is like a leader of the gang. There are secret statements recorded of the two persons and those are considered by the authority. A notice was served upon petitioner Sagar Sarode 5 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt directing him to appear within seven days before the Superintendent of Police, however, he did not appear. Running of gambling center is also creating law and order situation in the area. The action is taken to curtail such activities of the petitioners. She, therefore, prays for rejection of this writ petition. 9. This Court has gone through the order passed by the Superintendent of Police. It is seen that what weighed with the said authority is pendency of 41 cases against petitioner Sanjay Gaikwad. The statements considered by the authority are perused by this Court. Both the statements are identical. The persons have stated that petitioner Sanjay Gaikwad runs gambling center. The people in the locality are affected because of this center and they are addicted to various persons. To run a gambling center, the petitioners create terror situation. It is for this reason, no one come forward to give evidence against the petitioners. It is further stated that these activities are also affecting the people in the locality financially. There is a tendency, some of the people have committed suicide because of financial crisis. 10. This Court finds that the above material is too short to come to conclusion that action under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act is required to be taken. This Court has gone through the judgment in the case of Raees (surpa). This Court has observed in that case that though serious cases are pending against the 6 53-CrWP-2008-24.odt petitioners, there is no conviction recorded in any of the cases and, on the contrary, they are acquitted in some of the cases. The details of the order and secret statements are not mentioned in the order. The crimes in the case were individualistic in nature. 11. Considering all above, this Court finds that in the present cases also, there is no conviction recorded by any of the Court till passing of the order. Considering the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 12A i.e. fine of Rs.300/- and imprisonment up to three months, this Court finds that those offences are not serious or nor of the nature calling for action of externment. 12. For the above reasons, this Court is inclined to allow the petitions. Hence, the order; ORDER i) The criminal writ petitions stand allowed. ii) The impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 11.11.2024, passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner in appeals, rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners, are quashed and set aside. [KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGE rrd