2002 Supreme(Bom) 769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
R.S. Mohite, J.
Arun Narayanrao Mane.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others .... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 321 of 2001, decided on 1-8-2002.
Advocates appeared :
R.B. Pendharkar, Sr.C., for petitioner.
Doifode, A.P.P., for respondents.
An externment order based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice is liable to be set aside.
Headnote:
Externment Order - Grounds for Externment Order - Show Cause Notice - Judgment of Division Bench - Externment Order Set Aside
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the externment order on the ground that one of the grounds for externment was not mentioned in the show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ground for externment, based on suspicion of residents providing information to the police about illegal activities, was not mentioned in the show cause notice, which vitiated the externment order.
Issues: The issue was whether the ground for externment was properly mentioned in the show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order passed on material not disclosed in the show cause notice is liable to be set aside, citing a judgment of the Division Bench.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the externment order was set aside.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that nonetheless, he wishes to pursue the matter on merits because there is a stigma caused on the externee by the impugned order.
3. The first point he has raised is that one of the grounds upon which the externment order is based is that the applicant, suspected that some of the residents of Manas Chowk, Model School, Sitabuldi Police Station area, Cotton Market, Jayshree Talkies, Ganeshpeth and adjoining areas are giving information to the police about his illegal activities and because of such suspicion, he is assaulting such residents and shopkeepers from such areas and by showing a knife and giving threats of assault, has created terror. The contention is that this ground was not mentioned in the show cause notice. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Khairunisa Mohamed Suleman Sayyed v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Miraj and another)1, reported in 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 427, in which it has been held that an order passed on material which was not disclosed in show cause notice is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned A.P.P., by way of reply to this contention, drew my attention to para 4(a), (b) (d) of the show cause notice. These paragraphs refer to specific incidents, after the commission of which the applicant is alleged to have given a threat to the victim about not filing a report in the Police Station. The learned A.P.P. contended that this amounted to giving a threat to the victim not to give information to the police.
5. In my opinion, the argument of the applicant is well founded and the explanation given on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable. A situation where a person assaults another on a suspicion that the person is a police informer is completely different situation from one where a person assaults another and then informs him not to give a police report. In the former, the assault follows the suspicion of a person being a police informer whereas in the latter situation, threat follows the assault. This ground, which is made part of the basis for issuance of the externment order is thus not to be found in the show cause notice and in my opinion, this would vitiate the externment order. On this ground alone, the petition would succeed and it would not be necessary to refer to other contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
Petition succeed.
-----