Bombay High Court
MOHAMMAD SARFRAJ BHAUDDIN KHAWAJAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition may be withdrawn and the petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Summary
Petitioner Mohammad Sarfraj Bhauddin Khawaja challenged an externment order dated 25 May 2026 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Sawantwadi, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking its quash. The State opposed the petition, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer and contending that an alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that the order is appealable under that provision and requested permission to withdraw the writ petition and file the statutory appeal within two weeks, asking that the time spent on the petition not be counted against the 30‑day limitation. The Court allowed the withdrawal, directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal under Section 60 without requiring condonation of delay, and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative statutory appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is available.
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and file the statutory appeal without condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 60
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ of certiorari
- externment order
- statutory appeal
- Section 60
- Maharashtra Police Act
- withdrawal of petition
- procedural law
Judgment
49 - CR WP - 649 - 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JADHAV
Date: 2026.08.21
20:17:08 +0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2026
Mohammad Sarfraj Bhauddin Khawaja …Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. …Respondents
-----
Mr. Anil Patil for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, APP for the State-
Respondents.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 18th August, 2026.
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Anil Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs.
Shubhangi Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought the following
substantive relief:
“(A) By way of writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ like in nature under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash and set aside the administrative order dated 25.05.2026
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate sawantwadi, by which
the Externment of the Petitioner be quashed.”
Vaibhav 1
49 - CR WP - 649 - 2026.doc
3. Mrs. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State, relying
on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.
Excise & Taxation Officer1 raises a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of this petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an
alternative statutory remedy against the impugned order under Section
60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
4. Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 reads thus:
“60. Appeal
[(1)] Any person aggrieved by an order made
under section 55, [56, 57 or 57A] may appeal to the
State Government [or to such Officer as the State
Government may by order specify (hereinafter
referred to as "the specified officer")] within thirty
days from the date of such order.
[(2) An appeal under this section shall be
preferred in duplicate in the form of a
memorandum, setting forth concisely the grounds of
objection to the order appealed against, and shall be
accompanied by that order of a certified copy
thereof.
(3) On receipt of such appeal the State Government
[or the specified Officer] may, after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the appellant to be heard
either personally, or by a pleader, advocate or
attorney and after such further inquiry, if any, as it
may deem necessary, confirm, vary or cancel, or set
1(2023) SCC OnLine SC 95
Vaibhav 2
49 - CR WP - 649 - 2026.doc
aside the order appealed against, [or remand the
case for disposal with such directions as it or he
thinks fit, and make its or his order] accordingly :
Provided that, the order appealed against
shall remain in force pending the disposal of the
appeal, unless the State Government [or the
specified Officer] otherwise directs.
[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-
section the power to vary the order appealed against
shall include, and shall be deemed always to have
included, the power to hold such order in abeyance
and to make conditional order permitting the person
to enter or return to the area or such areas and any
contiguous districts or part thereof, or to the
specified area or areas, as the case may be, from
which he was directed to remove himself.]
(4) In calculating the period of thirty days provided
for an appeal under this section, the time taken for
granting a certified copy of the order appealed
against shall be excluded.]”
5. Faced with the objection raised by Mrs. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh,
learned APP, regarding the availability of an alternative statutory
remedy, Mr. Anil Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, fairly states
that the impugned order dated 25th May 2026 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Sawantwadi, is appealable under Section 60 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Vaibhav 3
49 - CR WP - 649 - 2026.doc
6. Mr. Anil Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner on instructions
from the Petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this Petition, with liberty to
file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He, however, submits that the Petitioner
was pursuing this Petition bona fide and in good faith and therefore
requests that the period spent in pursuing this Petition be excluded, as
an Appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is
required to be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the order. He
states that the Appeal against the impugned order shall be filed within
two weeks from today.
7. Mrs. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State, in all
fairness, submits that if an Appeal against the impugned order dated
25th May 2026 is filed by the Petitioner within two weeks from today,
the Respondents-State shall not raise any objection on the ground of
limitation and that the State would argue the matter on merits.
8. In view of the statements made hereinabove, leave is granted to
the Petitioner to withdraw this Petition, with liberty to file an Appeal
against the impugned order under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951, as submitted by Mr. Anil Patil, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Vaibhav 4
49 - CR WP - 649 - 2026.doc
9. If the Petitioner files an Appeal against the impugned order dated
25th May 2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawantwadi
under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 before the
Appellate Authority within two (2) weeks from today, the Appellate
Authority is requested not to insist on an Application for condonation of
delay and to consider the Appeal on its own merits and in accordance
with law.
10. Writ Petition No. 649 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Vaibhav 5
Checking your session…