1 / 10 32.wp847.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2025 Priyanka Rakesh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. Superintendent of Police, Wardha and anr. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 858 OF 2025 Sima Manoj Pala and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. Superintendent of Police, Wardha and Ors. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2025 Shalu Sudhir Khobragade and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. Superintendent of Police, Wardha and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B. Dhandale, Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.847/2025, 849/2025. Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition No.858/2025. Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State in Writ Petition No.847/2025. Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State in Writ Petition Nos.858/2025, 849/2025. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 27.11.2025 In all these petitions, common grievances have been raised by the petitioners firstly that the offences which are registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act cannot form basis for the purpose of externing the petitioners from the Wardha District, which was declared as a dry district. Secondly, while externing the petitioners for the maximum period of two years, no reasons are Prity 2 / 10 32.wp847.2025 assigned by the externing authority, what was the need to award maximum period of externment has not been provided. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the learned APPs for the respondent/State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that crimes under Bombay Prohibition Act are registered against the petitioners. Against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.847/2025, there are as many as 34 crimes, Writ Petition No.858/2025 there are four crimes registered against petitioner No.1 and five crimes registered against petitioner No.2. So far as, the Writ Petition No.849/2025 is concerned, against the petitioner No.1, there are twenty crimes whereas against petitioner No.2, there are six crimes. It is contended that this Court need not go into facts of the case as the two issues raised in these petitions are no more res integra, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Ransing Bire and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., in Writ Petition No.3572/2010 and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2022 (2) Supreme 445. Prity 3 / 10 32.wp847.2025 4. The learned counsels appearing for petitioners submits that the ratio laid down in both these judgments would cover both the issues raised. They further submit that the activities of the petitioners does not fall under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act as the offences in which they are alleged to have been involved are all pertaining to illicit distillation of liquor or selling of liquor in the dry district and it is difficult to conceive as to how these activities could be said to be calculated to cause danger or alarm. It was further submitted that while externing for maximum period of two years the authority has failed to give reasons and therefore, the order is against the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra). 5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the petitioners are habitual criminals and in order to prevent them from committing further crime in future, externment is necessary. Accordingly, after considering the entire record, a detailed order has been passed by giving cogent reasons. The activities of the petitioners as could be gathered from the FIRs which are registered against them are causing danger or alarm to the society at large. Therefore, the externing authority is justified in passing the order. They further submits that the Government of Maharashtra has taken a conscious decision to ban liquor in the Wardha district and therefore, Prity 4 / 10 32.wp847.2025 if the petitioners are violating the said order then it could be gathered that they are not law abiding citizens. Under such circumstances, this Court may not entertain the prayers of the petitioners. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned APPs for the respondent/State, as was observed above, to answer the two questions arose in all these three petitions, it is necessary to reproduce Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, which reads thus: “55. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons - Whenever it shall appear in Greater [Brihan Mumbai] and in other areas in which Commissioner is appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the [Superintendent] empowered by the State Government in that behalf, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such officer may, by notification addressed to the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men of such gang or body and published by beat of drum or otherwise as such officer thinks fit, direct the members of such gang or body so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction [or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto] within such time as such officer shall prescribe, and not to enter to area [for the areas and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the Prity 5 / 10 32.wp847.2025 case may be], or return to the place from which each of them was directed to remove himself.” 7. Therefore, considering the definition of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the question before me is whether the activities of petitioners would fall under the definition of Section 55. This Court in case of Suraj Ransing Bire and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., in Writ Petition No.3572/2010, has observed that “in any case the, the offences in which they are alleged to have been involved are all pertaining to illicit distillation of liquor and it is difficult to conceive as to how these activities could be said to be calculated to cause danger or alarm. Since no offences as body of persons are shown to have been committed by the petitioners in the two petitions justifying the orders of their externment, the petitioners are justified in saying that the externment orders do not comply with the requirements of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act”. 8. Therefore, the High Court while dealing with the order of externment has come to the conclusion that the offences registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, are not sufficient to extern petitioners as the activities does not cause danger or alarm. No doubt, the petitioners are involved in the crimes under the Bombay Prohibition Act, admittedly, those crimes are registered in the dry districts. Prity 6 / 10 32.wp847.2025 However, so far as Section 55 or Section 56 of the Act does not make distinction that the activities which are committed in the dry districts would cause danger or alarm and would not in other districts where there is no ban. Therefore, the legislature has not carved out any exception to Section 55 or Section 56 in respect of dry district. Under such circumstances, if the crimes are registered under Maharashtra Prohibition Act, then it cannot be said that activities are causing danger or alarm. Merely Wardha being a dry district that by itself is not sufficient to invoke the provision of Section 55 or Section 56 on the basis of the crimes, which are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. 9. Further, after perusal of all the impugned orders, there are no reasons provided as to what prompted the externing authority to extern petitioners for the maximum period of two years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in DGLS (SC) 101, which observed as under : “13. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus: “58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56,57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case Prity 7 / 10 32.wp847.2025 exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case may be". On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will Prity 8 / 10 32.wp847.2025 amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.” 10. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in categorical terms as ruled that if the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose application of mind by the competent authority, and order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which should be based on material on record. 11. After minutely perusing the impugned order, I do not find that there is a single reason recorded as to why the petitioners externment is required for maximum permissible period provided under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Therefore, it can be said that there is no subjective satisfaction on this aspect. So also before passing the order, the competent authority ought to have considered whether it was necessary to pass externment order for two years. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective and arrive at a wrong conclusion. In fact, it was obligatory on the part of appellate authority to see whether the order of externment would sustain in law or not considering the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court as referred supra. Prity 9 / 10 32.wp847.2025 Therefore, for the above reasons, the order is not sustainable. These petitions succeed, hence, the following order: O R D E R Writ Petition No.847/2025 (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.39/2025 and also order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Wardha in Externment Criminal Case No.23/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition No.858/2025 (i) The writ petition is allowed. (iii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.1- Superintendent of Police, Wardha and also order dated 10.10.2025 in Appeal No.45/2025 passed by respondent No.3-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition No.849/2025 (i) The writ petition is allowed. Prity 10 / 10 32.wp847.2025 (iv) The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.40/2025 and also order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Wardha, in Externment Criminal Case No.09/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) Prity