A notice under section 59 of the Act must provide the general nature of the material allegations, enabling the proposed externee to tender an explanation as a condition precedent for passing an externment order under section 56.

Headnote:
Notice - Externment Order - Vagueness of Allegations
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an externment order issued against him under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, citing that the notice lacked specific particulars of the allegations, preventing him from tendering an explanation as required by section 59 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court accepted the contention that the notice was vague and lacked essential details, rendering it invalid. As a result, the court quashed the impugned externment order.
Issues: Vagueness of notice under section 59 of the Act, lack of specific particulars of allegations, and the petitioner's right to tender an explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid notice under section 59, providing the general nature of the material allegations, is a condition precedent for passing an order under section 56 of the Act. The notice in this case was found to be invalid due to its vagueness and lack of essential details.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned externment order was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners has challenged the order of externment dated May 5, 1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Kalyan, against him under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner under section 59 of the Act is totally devoid of any particulars of the nature of the allegations against him which has prevented the petitioner from tendering any explanation as contemplated by section 59 of the Act. Secondly, he submitted that though the prejudicial activities imputed to the petitioner are confined to Ulhasnagar area, by the externment order the petitioner has been externed from the area of Thane, Greater Bombay and Raighad Districts. He submitted that the area mentioned in the order shows total non application of mind as there is no reason whatsoever for including that area of Raighad District.

2. We are inclined to accept the first contention urged by Mr. Chitnis and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the second contention urged by him. The notice under section 59 served on him merely states---

"1. That since 1977 in the locality known as Ulhasnagar and areas adjoining there your acts and movements are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, harm and is danger to the residents and shop keepers of the locality of those areas, in that:

(a) That since 1977 in that locality or those areas, your are engaged in the commission of offences of robberies by extorting money at the point of knife, which offences fall under Chapters XXVI XVII of the Indian Penal Code.

(b) That since 1977 you are engaged in the commission of offence of assaults on residents and/or shop-keepers of that locality or those areas which offence falls under Chapter XVI XVII of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Section 59 contemplates that before passing an order of externment under section 56 the person against whom such action is proposed to be taken must be informed in writing of the general nature of the material allegation against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. The above-mentioned allegations, to say the least, are blissfully vague. There is not a barest indication of the material against the petitioner to enable him to exercise his right of tendering an explanation. It is true that the notice under section 59 need not disclose the names of the victims or the witnesses; otherwise the very purpose for which the preventive action is contemplated under the Act might be frustrated. However, the authority is bound to disclose the general nature of the material against the person concerned. All that is mentioned in the notice is that since 1977 the petitioner has been indulging in certain criminal acts. The notice does not mention either the month or the year in which the incident took place nor does it even remotely indicate the particular locality and the nature of the particular incident intended to be used against the petitioner. Section 59 confers valuable rights on the proposed externee. He has as a right to tender his explanation against the proposed action. The notice in this case is clearly bad for vagueness and further indicates a total lack of application of mind on the part of the authority. A valid notice under section 59 is a condition precedent for passing an order under section 56 of the Act. Since we are of the view that the notice is bad, the impugned order of externment is liable to be set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of May 5, 1984, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document