All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: 938-wp-5679-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2017 Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Gramsevak & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ameya Deshpande i/by Mr.V.B. Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY 2017 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The statusquo order passed on 27th April 2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 08th June 2017. List the matter on 08th June 2017. [M.S. KARNIK, J]

Order - Status 7: Trupti p506wp-5679-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5679 OF 2017 …... …... Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Gramsevak, Gramopanchayat Jakhinwadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas B.Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JUNE 7, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. The status-quo order passed on 27.04.2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 27.06.2017. Stand over to 27.06.2017 (High on Board). (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5679 OF 2017 Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Gramsevak & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 27th June, 2017. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, this Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Karad dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016 thereby confirming the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad in Regular Civil Suit No. 410 of 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the members of Gram Panchayat of Village Jakhinwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent no. 3/one private party that the respondents/original defendants shall not construct especially a wall and the road, which is available to the petitioners/plaintiffs, should not be closed and they should not disturb the petitioners from the use of the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying the west side of the said road since last many years, however, the respondents collusively have decided to construct a compound wall for the kitchen of the auditorium which was constructed by Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that earlier a suit was filed between the respondents and other parties in the year 1961 and in the earlier suit, a settlement has taken place wherein the said land was shown as a road available for the public use and thus, the petitioners have every right to use the said land as access and which is going to be closed because of the construction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioners have no right over the said property. The auditorium is constructed for the public purpose and public use, so the construction of the wall or any construction for that auditorium is not going to cause any hindrance or any disturbance to the access of the petitioners. He 2 / 3 further argued that other roads are available to the petitioners. Heard the submissions. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The reasons given by both the Courts are detailed. It is specifically observed by the learned Judges that the petitioners have failed to establish the case that there was only way as access to their property. It is also observed that other than that there are other access to their respective properties. Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie no case is made out. The view taken by both the Courts cannot be interfered with. I am not inclined to extend the status quo order passed on 27th April, 2017 by the Appellate Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners orally prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks. Considering the merits of the matter, I am not inclined to grant stay to this order. Order accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan … Petitioner Vs. Shri Dr. K. Venkateshan & Ors. … Respondents ------- Mrs. Misbaah Solkar a/w Mr. Amin Solkar, advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 10/02/2020. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and assures this court that original record pertaining to the detention of the detenu maintained by the respondents will be made available on the next date of hearing. (N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.) Mugdha 1 of 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Shri Dr.K.Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents …… Ms.Misbaah Solkar i/b. Mr.Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. …… DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2020 P.C.: The learned APP has tendered across the bar a copy of affidavit of Deputy Secretary (In-charge), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. The same is taken on record. At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stand over to 11th February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Dr. K. Venkateshan and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Misbah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State. *** CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2020 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner for sometime. At her request, stand over to 12th February, 2020. (V.G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner vs. Dr.K. Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Misbah Solkar i/b Mohd. Amin H. Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh APP for Respondent-State. …… CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2020 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Reserved for judgment for pronouncement of judgment on 21st February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 07 OF 2020 Shamim Makmood Khan Age : 65 years, Occ : Business Resident of A.D. Camp Chowk, 1140, In front of Aaina Majjid, Bhavani Peth, Pune ] ] ] ] ]PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri. Dr. K. Venkateshan Commissioner of Police Pune City. ] ] ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] ] ] 3. The Superintendent of Jail Yerwada Central Prison, Pune ] ] ] ] 4. The Secretary, Advisory Board (MPDA), Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] ]RESPONDENTS Ms. Misbaah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. Reserved on : 12th FEBRUARY 2020 Pronounced on : 21st FEBRUARY 2020 JUDGMENT :- (PER S. S. SHINDE, J) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner Shamim Makmood Khan, who is the mother of Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against the dentenu on 16th October, 2019 by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order has been issued as, according to the Detaining Authority, the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 occurred on 09.06.2019 registered with Samarth Police Sation, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and another incident i.e. C.R. No. 208/2019 occurred on 11.07.2019 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded. 3 Though number of grounds have been raised in the present Petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenu has pressed only five grounds before us i.e. Ground Nos. 'A', 'B', 'C', 'F', and 'O'. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim:- A. The Petitioner says and submits that the orders annexed and marked at Exhibits "A" and "B" are manifestly erroneous and patently illegal in as much as the same are based in total defiance to the facts of the case, and the said orders also display a complete non-application of mind and is malafide on the part of the Detaining Authority. B. The Petitioner says and submits that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenu, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order and as such the orders are obviously illegal, bad in law, malafide, unconstitutional and unsustainable. C. The Petitioner says and submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 (3) of the said Act to send a REPORT forthwith in respect of the detention, together with the grounds of detention and other particulars to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to furnish details of the exact date on which the proposal and the findings and also the copies of the documents relied upon were placed before him and also the exact date on which he submitted the said report under Section 3(3) to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish the details of the exact date on which the said report was actually received by it. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to state as to what were the documents accompanying the said report and are further called upon to state whether the grounds of detention, as formulated by Respondent No. 1 and the material on which the grounds are based as well as other documents, if any, including the proposal and the findings were forwarded to Respondent No. 2 together with the said report. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish all details about the consideration, if any, of the said report including the date of which such consideration, if any, and the exact date of the approval of the detention order and the exact date of issuance of the order of approval. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to state whether the approval, if any, was by a person competent and duly authorized under the relevant Rules of Business and/or the Standing Orders issued thereunder, to exercise the power of the State Government under section 3(3) of the said Act. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to furnish the above information to this Hon'ble Court based on the authentic contemporaneous official records and by due production thereof, before this Hon'ble Court since the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention were not sent along with the order of detention for approval and if at all sent it was only after the order of detention was allegedly passed. If any of the provisions of the Section 3(3) of the said Act are not strictly observed or complied with, the detention and/or continued detention is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, null and void. F. The Respondent No. 1 is bound to produce for the scrutiny of this Hon'ble Court the proposal and the findings for the detenu's detention, relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are no more than a repetition of the proposal with minor grammatical and consequential variations, there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind. It is well settled that the liberty of a Subject is a serious matter and the same cannot be trifled with any such casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to state whether before formulating the grounds of detention, he did go through the opinion of different subordinate officers, if any, written on the said proposal. The Respondent No. 1 having gone through the opinion of his subordinate Officers and having been influenced by them in formulating the grounds of detention and in the passing of the detention order, then the said detention order suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, null and void. O. The Petitioner says and submits that the recording of "In-Camera" statements seems to be fabricated and got-up statements in order to put the detenu behind bars under Preventive Detention. The Petitioner says and submits that, even otherwise, the incidents mentioned therein are stale, remote and not proximate in time and, therefore, the order of detention smacks of malafides. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying upon Grounds A, B, C, F and O submits that there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention; there was delay in passing the order of detention; the alleged in-camera statements are fabricated and not properly verified by the Detaining Authority. She further submits that there was delay in submitting the proposal to Mantralaya by the Detaining Authority seeking approval of detention of Detenu. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments :- 1] Anil vs State of Maharashtra and ors. 1 2] Rashid Shaukat Husain Sayyed @ Jagga vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2 and 3] Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar vs S Ramamurthi & ors. 3 1 2000(2) Mh.LJ 400 2 Order Bombay High Court dated 01/03/2018 in Cri.WP No.5284/2017. 3 AIR 1994 SC 656 5 On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State invites attention of this Court to the order of detention so also the grounds and the replies filed by the respective Respondents/Authorities and submits that the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind has passed the impugned order of detention. She further submits that there is no delay in passing the order of detention. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned APP pressed into service the exposition of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Govind Murudkar v/s. R. H. Mendonca & ors. decided on 10/03/2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2090 of 1999 (Coram : Vishnu Sahai and P V Kakade, JJ). It is submitted that the Detaining Authority relied upon two crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 and C.R. No. 208/2019, both registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, and two in-camera statements while passing the order of detention. It is submitted that in the grounds of detention it is made clear that paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 are referred only for the purpose of showing that the Detenu is a habitual offender and the said grounds/material referred therein have not been considered by the Detaining Authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. It is further submitted that the Detaining Authority has specifically stated in his reply that only paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention are taken into consideration while passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that the statement of witnesses in-camera are recorded after adhering to the proper procedure and those are verified by the Detaining Authority. She submits that the noting in the original file would make it clear that the Detaining Authority has personally seen those statements. It is submitted that the 2nd in-camera statement was recorded on 10/08/2019 and the detention order has been passed on 16/10/2019, as the proposal was routed through the concerned government authorities, time was consumed in processing the proposal and therefore it cannot be said that there was delay in passing the order of detention against the Detenu. The learned APP invites attention of this Court to the specific averments made in the reply filed by Respondent-1 i.e. the Detaining Authority so also the reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority, and submits that the contentions raised in Ground Nos. A, B, C, F and O are specifically dealt with and replied and therefore there is no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was nonapplication of mind by the Detaining Authority or there was delay in passing the order of detention or that in-camera statements are fabricated. It is submitted that the ground of delay in passing the order of detention has not been specifically raised by the Petitioner in the Petition and therefore the said ground orally agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner may be kept out of consideration. In support of the aforesaid contentions the learned APP relied upon following judgments :- 1] Hemlata K Shah vs State of Maharashtra and anr 4 and 2] Hetchin Haokip vs State of Manipur & ors. 5 4 (9181) 4 SCC 647 5 (2018) 9 SCC 562 6 We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State, we have carefully perused pleadings in the Petition and specifically the grounds A, B, C, F and O raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 7 It is true that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated that the offences registered against the Detenu mentioned in Paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 are considered only for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the Detenu even in past indulged in the similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Upon careful perusal of the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, in paragraph 8 thereof it is stated that Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority has carefully gone through the material placed before him and he has subjectively satisfied that, the Detenu is a weapon-wielding dangerous desperado of violent character, indulging in terrorizing activities and since 2014 the Detenu is engaged in criminal activities, and the criminal activities of the Detenu have created a reign of terror in the minds of people. It is further stated that the Detenu and his accomplices move, armed with deadly weapons such as Koyata, knife, wooden stick and sword and do not hesitate to use the same while committing the offences such a robbery, hurt etc. Furthermore, in the said paragraph it is stated that the Detenu also does not hesitate to use these deadly weapons for threatening the peace loving public residing with the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations, Pune City. 8 It is next stated that the Detenu has been habitually committing offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code as well as under Chapter V of the Arms Act and thus the Detenu is a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. The criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detenu has thereby became dangerous to the lives and properties of people residing and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations in Pune City. There are 6 offences registered against the Detenu at Lashkar, Wanawadi and Samarth Police Stations in Pune City in addition to the two offences committed during past 6 months and that the dangerous criminal activities of the Detenu are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further stated that in order to curb the criminal activities of the Detenu, preventive actions under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3(2) of MPDA were taken against him but the same had no deterrent effect on the Detenu. It is further stated that the Senior Inspector of Police, Samarth Police Station i.e. the Sponsoring Authority conducted a confidential enquiry of the criminal activities of the Detenu and his associates, and during the confidential enquiry the Sponsoring Authority recorded in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" on 02/08/2019 and 10/08/2019. It is also stated that the incidents recorded in the in-camera statements also show that criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Lastly in paragraph 8, the Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, has stated thus :- "after considering in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. Cr No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and the documents placed before me by Sponsoring Authority, after perusing the said record, I was subjectively satisfied and after application of mind, I have passed the order of detention of the Detenu. As such the said order is legal, just and proper and as per the provisions of law and deserves to be confirmed." 9 In paragraph 9 of the reply Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has stated thus :- "It is submitted that after my subjective satisfaction that the offences I considered for passing the Order of Detention are disturbing the public order and it is required to detain the detenu, I passed the order of detention under section 3(2) of MPDA Act 1981. It is further submitted that I being the Detaining Authority have passed the order of detention on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 and 6.2. As such in the said paragraph Nos.5.1, 5.2 particulars of offences mentioned, for passing order of detention." 10 The aforesaid averments would make it clear that while arriving at subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has not only confined his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019, but also the documents placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to confine his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019 as has been stated in the grounds of detention while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. However, it appears that the Detaining Authority has relied upon paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 in which particulars of past offences are mentioned, and the material referred in the said paragraphs have been considered by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. 11 The offences i.e. CR No.188/2019 under Sections 392, 506(2) of the IPC r/w Section 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act r/w Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and CR No.208/2019 under Section 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the IPC have been registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune City, however, it is apparent from the averments made in the affidavit in reply of Respondent No.1 i.e. the Detaining Authority that the Detaining Authority has considered the other offences registered with other two police stations i.e. Wanawadi Police Station and Lashkar Police Station, Pune City while passing the order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority has not considered the other crimes registered with other two police stations while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. 12 Though it is vehemently submitted by the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State that there was no delay in passing the order of detention, nevertheless, from the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority it is clear that the Sponsoring Authority sent proposal of the detention of Detenu on 14/08/2019 to ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune, who after verifying the truthfulness and genuineness of the statements of witnesses sent the said proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City. The said Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police forwarded the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019. The Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region has scrutinized the proposal and forwarded it to the Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) Pune on 12/10/2019. The Police Inspector, Crime Branch (PCB) sent the said proposal to the DCP Crime Pune on 12/10/2019. The DCP Crime Pune forwarded it to the Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune on 13/10/2019. Thereafter Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune has scrutinized the proposal and submitted to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Pune on 14/10/2019. The Joint Commissioner of Police further scrutinized the said proposal and sent it to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Pune i.e. the Detaining Authority. Even if the time is reckoned from 14/08/2019 i.e. the date on which Sponsoring Authority sent the proposal to the ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune till 03/10/2019 i.e. the date on which Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I Pune sent the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner, South Region, Pune, more than 45 days time was taken by the authorities in perusing and scrutinizing the said proposal. Not only that, the Additional Commissioner of Police West Region, Pune has forwarded it to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune on 12/10/2019. It is therefore clear that the Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region had also taken about 9 days time in forwarding the said proposal to the Police Inspector Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune. No plausible explanation has been offered by the Respondents Authorities as to why the proposal was kept pending by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City for a considerable period and then sent it to Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019 and as to why Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region, took 9 days time in scrutinizing and forwarding the proposal to Police Inspector, PCB Crime Branch, Pune. 13 In paragraph 9 of Pradeep Paturkar's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :- "The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case." 14 In the facts of the present case, as observed herein above, delay in forwarding the said proposal by the DCP, Zone I Pune to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune remains unexplained, so also the further delay in forwarding the said proposal by the Commissioner of Police, West Region, Pune to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) also remains unexplained. So far as the said delay is concerned, there is no satisfactory or plausible explanation offered by Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar (Supra), and since no plausible explanation has been offered for delay in passing the order of detention, it will have to be held that there was delay in passing the order of detention. 15 It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that relying upon 6 offences, which were registered against the Detenu in the past, the order of an externment was passed against the Detenu externing him from certain areas, and therefore relying upon the said past offences while passing the order of detention would amount to violation of mandate of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under :- "Art.20 (1)……. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3)…………." As already observed, the Detaining Authority in his reply stated that he has considered two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. CR No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and also the offences mentioned in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the grounds of order of detention, while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. In that view of the matter, if the earlier offences are considered while passing the impugned order of detention, the Respondents Authorities were obliged to state proximity and live link between present proceedings for detention and those earlier offences registered against the detenu. 16 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs an irresistible conclusion is that the order of detention impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be legally sustained, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence the following order is passed :- ORDER A] The impugned order of detention bearing No. PCB/DET/3405/2019 dated 16/10/2019 issued under Section 3(2) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. B] The Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. C] The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Laxmikant Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Chandan Date: 2020.02.21 11:43:27 +0530

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2006 ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Shri Sachin Manale for the petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 8TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. His claim was rejected on the ground that the disease for which the petitioner's father retired was not the one of a serious nature. Hence appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. We see no fault in the reasoning. Hence petition is rejected. ...

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel, .. Petitioner Vs Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & ors. Respondents Mr Rajiv Patil, for the petitioner. Mr P.D.gharge, for respondent no.1. Mr Uday Warunjikar, for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 4th November, 2004. PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.2004 by which the warrant of possession was issued in respect of shop no.16 in dispute in the suit. I am informed that the warrant of possession has already been executed and respondent no.3 has taken possession thereof. In view thereof, respondent no.3 has filed the undertaking stating that he will not create third party interest nor will part with possession of shop no.16 and that he will hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder within a period of 30 days from the date of decree subject to his right of appeal. Similarly respondent no.1 - Builder has also filed an undertaking stating that shop no. 6 which, according to him was allotted to respondent no.3, is still vacant and he will keep it vacant till the disposal of the suit. The undertakings given by respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 are taken on record and marked "X-I" and "X-II" for identification. The undertakings are accepted. Keeping that in view, in my opinion, I need not examine the merits of the case and the proper course would be to dispose of this petition with directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within timeframe. Hence, the following order. (i) The trial Court shall dispose of Spl.Civil Suit No.27 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner to communicate this order to the learned Judge within four weeks from today. (iii) The trial Court will decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the orders passed at interlocutory stage. The writ petition is disposed of. . An authenticated copy of this order may be made available to the parties. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel .. Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & Ors. ..Respondent None for the parties CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2005 P.C.: . Time to dispose of the matter pending before the Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist; Raigad is extended by 4 months. Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist: Raigad is directed to ensure that the matter is disposed of within the said time.

Order - Status 7: SSK/33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2009 Laxman Arjun Dongre ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. N. Gawade, APP. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2010. P.C.: None appears for the petitioner. This petition was filed in July-2009. With the passage of time, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition and hence, nobody is appearing for the petitioner. We are therefore, constrained to dismiss this petition for non-prosecution. Order accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh. ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: mptIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 of 2008 Mr.Baliram .. Namdev Wagh Petitioner versus State.. of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents ... Mr.K.H. Holambe for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1.Issue notice returnable on 1st October 2008. 2.In addition, petitioners to serve the respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/e-mail/fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3.Status quo as of today be maintained with regard to the suit property. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 13: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned for two weeks. Status-quo as ordered on 5th September, 2008 to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 16: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/by Mr.K.H.Holame for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 17th October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned to 24/10/2008. Meanwhile, status-quo to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 20: SPB FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders None for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Mr.Sameer D. Pendse i/by Rajesh Behere for the respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. None present for the petitioner again. Put on Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2008 as a last chance for dismissal. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr. Baliram Namdev Wagh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri Sameer D. Pendse i/b Shri Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 P.C: As none appeared for the petitioner on 2-12-2008, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2008 for dismissal. On 4-12-2008 as again none appeared for the petitioner, as last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the same caption. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp5757.8

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ganesh Nagargose i/b Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. ...... Request for adjournment is made on the ground that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is unwell and has been hospitalised. In the circumstances, stand over to 30th April 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the State. Mr.Milind D. Parab for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 2nd respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the 2nd respondent, ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for setting aside the exparte decree and has also prayed for stay. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed execution application and applied for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioner in the execution application for stay of proceedings of the execution on the ground that his application for setting aside exparte decree was pending. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. After having considered the submissions of the petitioner, I find no fault with the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending. If at all the petitioner is entitled to stay of execution of the decree, he has to apply for stay in application for setting aside exparte decree. Unless stay is granted in application for setting aside exparte decree, the executing Court was justified in not granting stay. Unless there is a stay granted to the execution by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings, the execution has to proceed. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for stay in the pending application for setting aside the exparte decree. To enable the petitioner to do so, ad-interim relief granted by this Court can be continued for a reasonable time. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The petition is rejected. The rejection of the petition will not preclude the petitioner from applying for appropriate interim relief in the pending application for setting aside exparte decree. (b) To enable the petitioner to take steps, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 17th October 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAE SIDE Writ Petition No. 4026 of 2007 Lasalgaon Vibhag Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1.The Asstt.Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors. ..Respondents Shri A.S.Desai for petitioner. Shri P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th July, 2007 P.C. The petitioner society removed the Managing Committee members on the ground that they had incurred disqualification under Rule 58(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. That action was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the members and the Asstt.Registrar Cooperative Societies, Niphad, District Nashik has held that the decision of the society is without any authority of law in as much as the concerned persons have not been declared as defaulters. There is no adjudication in that behalf. That order of the Asstt.Registrar was challenged by the Society in Revision Petition No.89 of 2006 and the Divisional Joint Registrar having upheld the same by the impugned order, the petitioner society is before me invoking my writ jurisdiction. The only contention raised by Shri Desai is that the aggrieved persons have no right to approach the Asstt.Registrar in as much as they had the remedy of filing a Dispute under sec.91 before the competent Cooperative Court. That was the only remedy available to them in law. Asstt.Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain their grievance. Be that as it may, on facts, it has been concurrently observed that the pre-requisite for initiating action has not been satisfied in the present case. In para 11 of the impugned order, the Joint Registrar has observed that C.E.O. of the society issued letter dated 22nd August, 2006 informing the concerned Managing Committee members that they have incurred disqualification under sec.73FF of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Hence, they cease to be the Managing Committee members. It has been observed by the Joint Registrar that powers under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act of removal are vested only with the Registrar and unless action under sec.78 of the Act is initiated there is nothing like an automatic cessation. That no order under sec.78 has been passed is not disputed by Shri Desai. That is settled position in law and reference has been made by both the authorities to the decisions of this Court in that behalf. Having observed that mandatory pre-requisites are not satisfied for invoking the powers to disqualify the Managing Committee Members and to remove them, I do not wish to enter into any larger controversy. More so, when the factual position remains undisputed. As to whether the Asstt.Registrar would have jurisdiction to interfere with the action of disqualification or removal or not is a matter which can be gone into and decided in an appropriate case. That aspect is expressly left open. I am of the view that the findings of fact are not vitiated by any error apparent nor can be termed as perverse. Hence, the writ jurisdiction is not available to the petitioner. Petition is summarily dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)