5-WP-4450-2025.doc Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4450 OF 2025 Sachin Sarjerao Raskar ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent ------- Mr. Kuldeep U Nikam for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent-State. ------- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C.: 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order of Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Appellate Authority dated 30th July, 2025 by which externment order under Section 56(1)(a) (b) dated 14th November, 2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Walwa Division Islampur, is confirmed. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune has confirmed the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Walwa Division Islampur and extern the petitioner from Sangli and 1/4 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2025.10.14 16:28:57 +0530 5-WP-4450-2025.doc Kolhapur Districts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the offences shown in the externment order, are registered at Ashta Police Station, District-Sangli. But, in the externment order, the petitioner has been externed from Sangli and Kolhapur Districts. There is no offence registered against petitioner in Kolhapur District. It shows non application of mind. He further submits that the offence shown in the externment order were under investigation, but those offences are mentioned in the externment order which is erroneous. He further submits that the notice under Section 59 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was not given to the petitioner before passing the externment order. He further submits that out of one year externment period, 11 months period is over. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition. 3. It is the contention of learned APP that the petitioner is habitual offender. Many offences are registered against him. After following proper procedure, externment order is passed against the petitioner. No interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the impugned 2/4 5-WP-4450-2025.doc order. 5. In the impugned order, there is mentioned all the offences registered against the petitioner at Ashta Police Station, District- Sangli. In operative part of the impugned order, the petitioner has been externed from Sangli and Kolhapur Districts, which is erroneous. When petitioner has not committed any offence in Kolhapur district, he even externed from Kolhapur. It is settled principle of law that notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to be given to the petitioner before taking any action under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Maharashtra police Act, 1951. But the record does not show about the notice issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. It proves that the externment order is passed without application of mind. The petitioner is out from two districts from 11 months. Considering these facts, I pass following order. O R D E R I. Writ Petition is allowed. II. The impugned order of Divisional Commissioner, Pune 3/4 5-WP-4450-2025.doc Division, Pune and Appellate Authority dated 30th July, 2025 is quashed and set aside. 6. Writ Petitions is disposed off. [SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 4/4