Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Police
Decided Date: 22/09/05
Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 Externment Jurisdiction of the authority making the order Mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities of the externee. Where the activities of the petitioner relied upon in the show cause notice related to various parts of city of Ambernath, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane and the order of externment of the petitioner was made relating to districts Thane, Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban and Raigad district.
Held, that a larger area may always form part of externment order. In a case where activities are confined to particular district and geographically contiguous district is shown to be intimately connected to the said district, the order may extend to both districts. Mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities by the externee. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2005 the order of externment alleges the prejudicial activities of the petitioner which are confined to area falling within the jurisdiction of Mulund Police Station in Mumbai. It is obvious that the order of externment extending to Thane district would have seen in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, the order is passed which applies to Raigad district along with Thane and Mumbai districts. The order merely recites that there are facilities of communication available between Mumbai and district Raigad. There is nothing in the order to show that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Mulund Police Station can be said to be intimately connected to the district Raigad. There is nothing stated in the order to show that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there is a necessity of extending the order to district Raigad. Thus, the order is excessive as it extends to district Raigad. Rule is made absolute. (1973) 1 SCC 372 and 1969 Mh LJ 387 Referred.
Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 Externment order Challenged Ground Added orders bad in law Two offences relied on In externment order petitioner has carried out his activities at different places Petitioner had no occasion to deal with allegations Order liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed in the show cause notice on two offences registered against the petitioner in Police Station,’S’. It is specifically stated in the order of externment that the petitioner has carried out his activities at Chawl and at other places within the jurisdiction of Police Station. If the show cause notice is read as it is, a reference is made to the incident which took place at the place of residence of the first informant at Patil Chawl in Murarji Peth. The second incident mentioned has taken place in the place called Hande Talim. In the order of externment, reliance has been placed on the prejudicial activities of the petitioner in Murarji Peth and also in Ramlal Chowk. In the show cause notice, there is no specific reference to any prejudicial activities of the petitioner in the area by the name Ramlal Chowk. The APP submitted that area of Chowk forms a part of area falling within the jurisdiction of Chavdi Police Station. However, the said contention cannot be considered as the show cause notice does not say that. The show cause notice specifically refers to activities of the petitioner in Chawl, and Chowk area. In the in-camera statements of witness A and B referred to in the notice there is no reference to any incident at Chowk. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner had no opportunity to deal with the allegation regarding alleged prejudicial activities at Chowk. It is also pertinent to note that notice for final disposal was issued by this Court and thereafter, on various dates petitioner appeared before this Court. No reply has been filed raising the contention that area of Chowk is not different from the area which is specifically referred to in the show cause notice. Thus, in the order of externment reliance has been placed on extraneous material in the terms of prejudicial activities at Ramlal Chowk. Hence, the order of externment deserves to be set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 Externment order Challenged Order added to same areas after show cause notice, became excessive Words in Section 56 that order can be passed regarding areas within jurisdiction of authority, but also contiguous thereto Such order can be set aside because of no greater liberty. It is obvious that the order of externment extending to Thane district would have been in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, the order is passed which applies to Raigad district alongwith Thane and Mumbai districts. As held, mere geographical proximity is no ground to pass order of externment. The order merely recites that there are facilities of communication available between Mumbai and district Raigad. There is nothing in the order to show that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Mulund Police Station can be said to be intimately connected to the district Raigad. There is nothing stated in the order to show that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there is a necessity of extending the order of district Raigad. Thus, the order is excessive as it extends to district Raigad. It must be noted that there is another error in the order. The order treats Navi Mumbai as a separate district when it admittedly forms part of the Thane District which is already mentioned in the order. However, it ca nnot be said that the order is also vitiated due to this error.
( 1 ) ON the last date, these petitions were finally heard. Though the facts of these Petitions may be different, some of the questions argued in these Petitions are common and therefore, it will be convenient to decide these Petitions by a common judgment.
( 2 ) IN these three Petitions the challenge is to the orders of externment under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as said Act of 1951) and confirmation thereof in the statutory appeals.
( 3 ) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 548 of 2005, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order of externment, there is a reference to the activities of the Petitioner in the Ramlal Chowk area. He submitted that this fact is not mentioned in the show cause notice and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated as reliance is placed on extraneous material. He submitted that order of externment passed against the Petitioner relates to Districts of Solapur, Osmanabad and pune when even according to the assertions made in the show cause notice, the alleged activities of the Petitioner are confined to solapur. He submitted that in the show cause notice, material details such as date, month and time of the alleged incidents relied upon are not disclosed and therefore, the order passed is in breach of principles of natural justice.
( 4 ) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2005, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the show cause notice states that the Petitioner was proposed to be externed from Greater Bombay, Bombay- suburban, Thane and Raigad districts and whereas in the order of externment additional area of Navi Mumbai is added. He submitted that the order is thus excessive. He submitted that the alleged activities of the Petitioner are confined to Mumbai and therefore, order of externment relating to districts Raigad and thane is excessive. He has raised other contentions regarding the merits of the order of externment.
( 5 ) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 1615 of 2005, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order is excessive in as much as for the alleged activities of the Petitioner which are confined to Thane district, he is sought to be externed from limits of Thane district, Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban district and Raigad district. He submitted that the allegations made in the notice, especially the allegations in the in-camera statements are vague and baseless. He has made submissions as regards the merits of the order of detention.
( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutors appearing in these Petitions have opposed the petitions. The submission in brief is that the orders are not excessive and considering the close proximity of the concerned districts, the orders cannot be said to be excessive. It is submitted that material allegations against the petitioners and the general nature of those allegations is reflected in the show cause notices. It is submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the authority and therefore, the Petitions may be dismissed.
( 7 ) I have considered rival submissions. In Writ Petition No. 548 of 2005, i have perused the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner. Reliance is placed in the show cause notice on two offences registered against the Petitioner in Foujdar Chavadi Police Station, solapur. It is specifically stated in the order of externment that the Petitioner has carried out his activities at Ramlal Chowk Chawl and at other places within the jurisdiction of Foujdar chavadi Police Station. If the show cause notice is read as it is, a reference is made to the incident of 10th January, 2004 which took place at the place of residence of the first informant at Patil Chawl in Murarji Peth. The Second incident mentioned of 19th February, 2004 has taken place in the place called "hande Talim". In the order of externment, reliance has been placed on the prejudical activities of the petitioner in Murarji Peth and al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
