The show cause notice and the externment order must provide sufficient details and reasons for externment, and excessive externment without specific reasons is not justified.

JUDGMENT - SHAH S.K., J.:---Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

2. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. By this writ petition, the externment order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Ulhasnagar, which was confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai, is impugned.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police issued a show cause notice, dated 23-4-2002 to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause, as to why the order of externment should not be passed against him under section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter the impugned order dated 20-6-2002 came to be passed, whereby the petitioner was externed from the Thane District, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Raigad District, for a period of two years, from the date on which the petitioner removes himself outside the limits of the aforesaid areas.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a reference to in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' in the show cause notice. However, no details as to the date, time and place of those incidents, narrated by these two witnesses, has been mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of meeting the allegations made by these two witnesses. Secondly, it is submitted that in the externment order, no reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner should be externed from Thane District, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Raigad District, when the activities which are mentioned in the show cause notice are confined to Ulhasnagar only and that too to Madrasipada, Dhobighat areas and its adjoining areas. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order suffers from vice of excessive externment from the aforesaid districts in respect of which no data was placed and entire externment order was in the circumstances, liable to be quashed. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of this Court, rendered in the case of (Punjaji Dagadu Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)611.

6. As against this, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the details given in the show cause notice with regard to the in-camera statements of the two witnesses 'A' and 'B', are sufficiently giving the details and particulars as to where the incident occurred and when. The learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that although the areas in which the activities of the petitioner were restricted were Madrasipada and Dhobighat of Ulhasnagar, which is the area adjoining to Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban and Raigad District and therefore, it is necessary to extern him from those districts.

7. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that the in-camera statement of witness 'A' was recorded which indicated that the witness has stated that the petitioner had assaulted the witness on a trifle reason, about one year ago, that about three months ago, the petitioner had demanded money from him and had threatened to beat him if the money was not paid. However, bare perusal of these statements would indicate that there is no mention as to the place, date, time etc. when the incident alleged to have occurred. There is also no mention of exact date, month and year. The mention is only about one year ago. Apart from this, there is no mention of any specific place, where these incidents occurred.

As regard the in-camera statement of witness 'B', the witness has stated that the incident occurred about six months ago, when he was threatened by the petitioner to give money. Here again, there is no mention as to the place, date, time and month of the incident.

Thus, it is clear that the in-camera statements of the two witnesses, which are mentioned in the show cause notice, are vague allegations, without giving any definite details as to the incident and thereby the petitioner was deprived of m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document