Bombay High Court
FARHAN ABDUL KADAR BATATEWALA AND ANRversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIIONER AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, subject to the petitioners strictly complying with the accepted undertakings.
Summary
The petitioners, three individuals, were externed from Mumbai and surrounding areas for two years under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act based on alleged offences related to tobacco and gutkha. They challenged the externment order, arguing that the offences cited were either under investigation or not linked to the show‑cause notice, and that no notice had been issued. The State contended that multiple serious offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Section 328 IPC justified the externment. The Court observed that most offences were bailable, the only non‑bailable offence (Section 328 IPC) was pending before the Supreme Court, and the petitioners had offered undertakings not to deal in tobacco products, which were accepted. Finding no subjective satisfaction for the externment and no live link between the offences and the notice, the Court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, subject to compliance with the undertakings.
Issues considered
- Whether the externment order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act is valid in the absence of a live link between the alleged offences and the show‑cause notice.
- Whether the petitioners' undertaking not to deal in tobacco and gutkha suffices to set aside the externment.
- Whether the presence of a non‑bailable offence under Section 328 IPC affects the validity of the externment.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Externment
- Maharashtra Police Act
- Section 55
- Section 59
- Undertaking
- Tobacco
- Gutkha
- IPC Section 328
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- Article 227
- Writ Petition
- Quash
Judgment
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2025
1. Farhan Abdul Kadar Batatewala …Petitioners
2. Adil Dilawar Supariwala
3. Sufiyan Hasan Batatewala
Vs.
1. The Divisional Commissioner
Kokan Division, Mumbai
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai …Respondents
3. The Sr. Police Inspector
4. The State of Maharashtra
Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w. Razique Shaikh, Arshad Shaikh, Hassan
Siddiqui, Muskan Shaikh and Jammu Shaikh, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the State.
API Vaibhav Kadam, Dongri Police Station.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai in Externment
Page 1 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
Case No. 43 of 2025 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951 by which the Petitioners have been externed from
Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Panvel for a
period of two years. The said order has been challenged before the
Appellate Authority by filing Externment Appeal No. 46 of 2025
and the said appeal has been dismissed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Kokan Division by order dated 6th August 2025.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that there is no live-link between the offences and show
cause notice. He submits that the last offence as far as the
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, is C.R. No. 274 of 2024
which has been registered with Dongri Police Station on 14 th June
2024. He submits that the said offences was under investigation
and therefore the same could not have been taken into
consideration. He submits that as far as the Petitioner No. 3 is
concerned, only one offence is registered which was under
investigation and therefore he could not have been externed. As
far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, he submits that the last offence
which has been taken into consideration against him is registered
on 24th May 2024 as the action has been taken on 21 st February,
Page 2 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
2025, there is no live link between these two cases. As far as
Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he states, the last offence is of 29 th
December 2024 and the action taken is on 21st February 2025 and
therefore also, there is no live link between the last offence and the
action of externment. He submits that show cause notice has not
been issued. In any case, he submits that all the Petitioners are
ready to give undertaking in terms of directions issued by the
Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage Vs. State of
Maharashtra1 and Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel tenders
undertakings of all the Petitioners stating that the Petitioners
would not indulge in the business of tobacco and allied product
which are prohibited in the State of Maharashtra and that the
Petitioners undertake that they shall not indulge in the offences
related to Tobacco and Gutkha.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP strongly opposes
the Writ Petition. She submits that as far as the Petitioner No.1 is
concerned, there are eight offences, there are four offences against
Petitioner No.2 and there is one offence against Petitioner No.3.
She submits that the Petitioners are indulging in the said offences
1 SLP (Cri.) Diary No. 2806/2023
Page 3 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
as a gang and the Petitioner No.1 is a gang-leader. She submits
that all the offences are very serious concerning the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. She submits that there is live-link
between the offences and action of externment and therefore, no
interference in the impugned orders is warranted.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the offences alleged against
the Petitioners are concerning Section 328 of the Indian Penal
Code and other offences are concerning bailable offences. The
issue whether the offence under Section 328 of the Penal Code will
apply to similar cases, i.e., where the Petitioners were found
dealing with Gutkha is pending before the Supreme Court.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage
(supra) has, while granting bail, has imposed following condition :
“It is deemed appropriate to impose the condition – “I,
Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage do undertake to not deal with
Gutkha, that is, Pan Masala with Tobacco”. In case, the
appellant – Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage violates the terms
and conditions of bail, including the undertaking
imposed, it would be open to the prosecution to seek
cancellation of bail. ”
(Emphasis added)
Page 4 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
Mr. Mateen Shaikh, learned Counsel of the Petitioners submitted
earlier that all the Petitioners are ready to give such undertaking
and accordingly, tenders such undertaking of all the Petitioners
which is in terms of the said order of the Supreme Court in the
case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage (supra).
7. As far as the merits are concerned, there is only one case
against the Petitioner No.3 which has been taken into
consideration and admittedly the said case was under investigation
when action was taken and therefore could not have been taken
into consideration and drastic order of externment could not have
been passed.
8. Perusal of the record shows that as far as Petitioner No.1 is
concerned, the last offence is registered on 24 th December 2024
and as far as the Petitioner No.2 is concerned, the last offence is
registered on 14th June 2024 and the notice under Section 59 of
the Maharashtra Police Act was given on 20 th October 2025. Thus,
there is substance in the contention raised by learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners that there is no live link as far as the
registration of offence and the show cause notice is concerned.
Page 5 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
9. Perusal of the record shows that all the offences are of
bailable nature except offence under Section 328 IPC. As noted
earlier, whether Section 328 IPC will apply to the said offence
concerning dealing with Pan Masala and Gutkha is being
considered by the Supreme Court. The Petitioners have already
given the undertakings that they will not indulge in the offences
related to the Gutkha i.e. Pan Masala with Tobacco. The said
undertakings given by the Petitioners are accepted.
10. Although certain reasons are set out for externing the
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, however, there is no subjective satisfaction
recorded for externing the Petitioners from the area of Mumbai,
Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad.
11. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out
for interference in the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is
disposed of by passing following order :
ORDER
i. The order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai in
Page 6 of 7
29th September, 2026
931 WP-4640-2025.DOC
skt
Externment Case No. 43 of 2025 as also order dated 6 th
August 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan
Division in Externment Appeal No. 46 of 2026 are quashed
and set aside, subject to the Petitioners strictly complying
with the undertakings given to this Court and accepted by
this Court.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 7 of 7
29th September, 2026
Checking your session…