Bombay High Court

MOHD ANJUM ASHRAF SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable where the petitioner has already invoked the statutory appeal under Section 60, and the appropriate remedy is to expedite that appeal.

Summary

The petitioner, Mohd Anjum Ashraf Shaikh, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an externment order dated 19 September 2025 issued under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal under Section 60 of the same Act, which had been adjourned three times. The High Court observed that because the statutory remedy was already invoked, the writ petition could not be entertained. Instead, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within one month from 23 March 2026. The petitioner was ordered to appear before the appellate authority on the specified date, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition challenging an externment order is maintainable when a statutory appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 has been filed.
Whether the High Court can direct the appellate authority to expedite the hearing of the statutory appeal.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 55, 60

Subjects

externment order
statutory appeal
Maharashtra Police Act
writ petition
expeditious hearing
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                                   10-CRIWP939-2026.DOC

                                                                                Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 939 OF 2026

                      Mohd Anjum Ashraf Shaikh                            ...Petitioner
SANTOSH                                Versus
SUBHASH
KULKARNI              The State Of Maharashtra                           …Respondent
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.06
09:27:44 +0530        None for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Sagar Agarkar, APP for the State.

                                                      CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                      DATED: 4th MARCH, 2026

                      PC:-

                      1.     None appears for the petitioner.


                      2.     The challenge in this petition is to an externment order

                      dated 19th September, 2025 passed under Section 55 of the

                      Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.


                      3.     A perusal of the petition, especially paragraphs 4 and 5,

                      indicates that, the petitioner had already invoked the remedy of

                      statutory appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police

                      Act, 1951. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is averred that the

                      hearing in the said appeal was adjourned thrice.


                      4.     As the petitioner has already invoked the statutory

                      remedy, there is no propriety in entertaining the appeal. Since


                                                      1/2
                                             10-CRIWP939-2026.DOC

the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the said

appeal has not been heard expeditiously, it would be expedient

in the interest of justice to request the Appellate Authority to

hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.


5.   The petition stands disposed with a request to the

Appellate Authority to hear and decide Appeal No.170/2025 as

expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of one

month from 23rd March, 2026.


6.   The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority

on 23rd March, 2026 either personally or through his Advocate

or representative.


7.   The petition stands disposed.


                                        [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…