The period of externment under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, commences from the date of removal of the person from the area and not from the date of the order. The stay of the order does not extend the period of externment. The externment order becomes infructuous after the expiry of the period specified in the order.

Headnote:
BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 56, 58 - Externment order - Validity - Period of externment - Calculation - Stay of order - Effect - Held, period of externment commences from the date of removal of the person from the area and not from the date of the order - Stay of the order does not extend the period of externment - Externment order becomes infructuous after the expiry of the period specified in the order.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a member of the Municipal Council and a journalist, was served with a show cause notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, requiring him to show cause why action under section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(bb)(1) of the said Act be not taken against him and he be not externed from the areas of Parbhani, Nanded, and Akola Districts for a period of one year. The notice alleged that the petitioner's acts had created or were likely to cause alarm, danger, or harm, citing instances of offenses registered against him. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations and highlighting his contributions to society. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under section 56(1)(bb)(1) of the Act, directing the petitioner to remove himself from the Districts of Parbhani, Nanded, and Akola, for a period of nine months. The petitioner appealed to the State Government, which dismissed the appeal but limited the extent of the externment order to Parbhani District alone. The petitioner challenged the externment order in a writ petition before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the externment order had become infructuous as the period of externment had already expired. The Court observed that the period of externment commences from the date of removal of the person from the area and not from the date of the order. The Court further held that the stay of the order does not extend the period of externment. The Court also noted that the satisfaction of the authority competent to pass an order under section 56 is mainly based on the circumstances prevailing at the time when the order is passed and that these circumstances may change over time.
Issues: 1. Whether the period of externment commences from the date of the order or from the date of removal of the person from the area? 2. Whether the stay of the externment order extends the period of externment? 3. Whether the externment order becomes infructuous after the expiry of the period specified in the order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The period of externment commences from the date of removal of the person from the area and not from the date of the order. This is evident from the provisions of section 58 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which states that the period of externment shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area. 2. The stay of the externment order does not extend the period of externment. This is because there is no provision in the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which provides that the period for which the order is stayed shall be excluded while counting the period of externment. 3. The externment order becomes infructuous after the expiry of the period specified in the order. This is because the purpose of the externment order is to prevent the person from committing a breach of peace, and this purpose is no longer served once the period of externment has expired.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the writ petition as having become infructuous and made no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Petitioner is a member of the Municipal Council and is a journalist. He is a Commerce Graduate and is associated with some educational institutions and sport association. On 22nd April, 1989, a show cause notice purporting to be under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, requiring petitioner to show cause as to why action under section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(bb)(1) of the said Act be not taken against him and he be not externed from the areas of Parbhani, Nanded and Akola Districts for a period of one year. It was contended that since last five years petitioner's acts acts have created or are likely to cause alarm, danger or harm., Instances of therse acts were cited as offences registered at Serial Nos. 92 of 84, 122 of 85, 150 of 85, 24 of 87 and 125 of 88 in Hingoli Police Station. It was also mentioned in the notice that five non-cognizable cases have also been registered in the said Police Station against the petitioner and Police have instituted chapter cases under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the year 1986 and 1987. It was also alleged that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner by fear of injury to the person and property. In part 2 of the said notice, it was also alleged that the petitioner caused delay in the emersion procession of Lord Ganesh in the year 1986 and in the year 1988. Because of this, communal tension erupted in Hingoli town and the activities of the petitioner cited above, are creating hatred between sections of the society which are prejudicial to the public order and the petitioner can be treated to be a person endangering public order. In reply to the said notice, petitioner contended that he is a respectable citizen who has worked as Vice-President of the Municipal Council for three years and he is not convicted in any offences registered against him. He is acquitted of some offences and rest of the matters are pending. It was also denied that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. He also denied the charge that the emersion procession was deliberately delayed and he pointed out in the year 1988, that idol of the petitioner's institution was first emersed. Various documents showing the association of the petitioner with charitable institutions and political parties and affidavits of some citizens were also filed. On 9th May, 1989, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hingoli, was pleased to pass an order under section 56(1)(bb)(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, directing petitioner that he should remove himself from the Districts of Parbhani, Nanded and Akola, for a period of nine months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government on 17th May, 1989. In the appeal-memo, he submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate enquiring the matter, is a biased person for the reason that in June, 1988, he had caused the eviction of hutment dwellers during the rainy season which was objected to by the petitioner and the case of the hutment dwellers was represented by the petitioner before the State of Maharashtra and for this reason, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hingoli, has passed the externment order without due application of mind. The State of Maharashtra by its order dated 11th July, 1989, was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner but limited the extent of the externment order to parbhani District alone. This order passed by the State Government dated 11th of July, 1989, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. Shri S.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, has assailed the order of externment mainly raising three contentions. His first submission is that the grounds for externment of the petitioner mentioned in the notice as well as in the order are vague in nature. He further submits that the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hingoli, is mala fide since petitioner had objec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document