IMPORTANT POINT
While passing order of externment under Bombay Police Act if satisfaction recorded by authority is objective and is based on material on record then Courts would not interfere only because another view possibly could be taken.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 135 of 2002 wherein the High Court has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad dated 9.11.2001 under Section 56(1)(a), (b) and (bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) externing the appellant from Districts of Aurangabad, Jalgaon and Jalna for a period of two years. Appellant was directed to inform his residential address to the nearest Police Station within whose jurisdiction he would reside during the period of externment and also to report to that Police Station at least once in a month. The said order was confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department on 24.1.2002.

3. Briefly stated the facts are:

The appellant was served with a notice dated 3rd September, 2001 on 5th September, 2001 issued under Section 59 of the Act by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Aurangabad City. The notice referred to three criminal proceedings registered against the appellant. It was alleged in the notice that movements and activities of the appellant had caused alarm in the locality and created an atmosphere of terror. It contained details of three incidents having occurred within a period of fortnight or a month prior to the date of notice wherein the appellant had threatened the people for seeking their cooperation in teaching a lesson to Hindu community. It was mentioned that the appellant had established contacts with SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), an organisation engaged in activities against communal harmony and national security and in such capacity having participated in a programme of burning the effigies of leaders of RSS and VHP, thereby causing communal tension in the locality. It was also alleged that the appellant got himself elected as a Corporator on the basis of a false caste certificate obtained by him. It contained the details of an incident in which the appellant had extorted Rs. 700/- about 4/5 days prior to the date of notice in the middle of the night.

4. Upon service of notice the appellant filed a detailed reply stating therein that he belonged to a good family. That he was a Municipal Corporator elected from a constituency, which was mainly of non-Muslim voters and, therefore, according to him, there was no substance in the allegations that he was creating disharmony amongst the communities. According to him, Police had falsely implicated him in the proceedings as he ventilated the grievances of the citizens and stood against the Government machinery. With regard to the allegations that the appellant had got himself elected on the basis of wrong caste certificate it was stated that the matter was pending before the High Court at Aurangabad. The incidents mentioned in the notice alleging that he was creating disharmony amongst the communities was denied. It was also denied that he was creating communal tension or having links with SIMI.

5. The High Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the notice per se attracted clauses (a), (b) and (bb)(1) of Section 56(1) of the Act. The High Court did not find any substance in the allegations pertaining to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1), however, the High Court upheld the order of externment based on clause 56(1)(bb)(1) of the Act.

6. The High Court after perusal of the original documents and the statements of three witnesses recorded by the police in camera came to the conclusion that allegation pertaining to part 1 of clause (bb) of Section 56(1) were duly proved. Order of externment passed on the basis of these allegations was sustained. The High Court was satisfied that there was material on the record to come to the conclusion that the activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the locality as provided under the Act.

7. Counsel for