2.wp.755.2026 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 755 OF 2026 PETITIONER :- Faizan Ahmad Gulam Nabi, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Business, r/o Kasabpura, Old Town, Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola. 3) The Police Station Officer, Police Station Murtizapur, Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. P.W. Mirza, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for Respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 23 /09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:12659 2.wp.755.2026 Judgment.odt 2 3. The petition is filed with a limited prayer for direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati to hear the Appeal No.45- A of 2026 as well as the stay application expeditiously and within a period of four weeks. 4. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was externed by the order of the respondent No.2/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Murtizapur dated 04.08.2026, whereby an excessive order of externing the petitioner from three districts for a period of one year is passed by the externing authority, that too relying upon a stale offence of the year 2023 and one offence of the year 2026, which is voluntarily causing hurt punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. The aforesaid two offences have been relied upon by the externing authority to extern the petitioner from three districts i.e. Akola, Washim and Amravati. The petitioner is a commerce graduate and is not a criminal history-sheeter against whom such harsh action is undertaken. There was total non- application of mind on the part of the externing authority and as such the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner challenging the externment order dated 04.08.2026. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the stay application filed along with the appeal is still pending consideration 2.wp.755.2026 Judgment.odt 3 and no orders are passed, whereas the liberty of the petitioner is at stake. The continuous denial of the Appellate Authority to take up the matter for hearing and deciding the interim application for stay, violates the fundamental right of the petitioner and hence the petitioner prays for an early disposal of the appeal as well as the stay application challenging the impugned order of externment dated 04.08.2026. 6. As against this, Mr. Lule, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposes the petition on the ground that the statutory remedy available under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is already exercised by the petitioner. The appeal is filed recently and the application will be decided on its own merit in due course, as there are several such appeals pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati which are filed under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petition is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be rejected. 7. Having gone through the impugned order dated 04.08.2026, it appears that the impugned order is passed on the basis of one prior offence i.e. Crime No.221 of 2023 and the recent offence i.e. Crime No.352 of 2026 which is registered under 351 of the BNS. The order further shows that relying upon such offence, 2.wp.755.2026 Judgment.odt 4 the petitioner is externed from three districts i.e. Akola, Washim and Amravati, whereas the offence is registered only at Murtizapur city which falls under the Akola, District. 8. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has prayed for an alternate prayer of direction to decide the appeal expeditiously as the application for stay is pending and taking into consideration that the liberty of the petitioner is at stake as he has been externed from three districts, I am of the opinion that directions can be issued to the respondent No.1/Divisional Commissioner, to decide the appeal and the application for stay expeditiously. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) Respondent No.1/Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the Appeal No.45-A of 2026 and the stay application filed by the petitioner expeditiously and not beyond a period of three weeks from today, in any case. iii) With the aforesaid decision, the writ petition stands disposed of. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 14:47:09