Back
Bombay High Court
TARKUNDE,PALEKAR
Balu Shivling Dombe - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur - Respondent
Decided On : 09/26/1968
EXTERNMENT - BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 56(A) - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - ORDER OF EXTERNMENT BASED ON ALLEGED ACTS CAUSING ALARM, DANGER OR HARM TO ONE OR TWO INDIVIDUALS - NOT VALID - ORDER MUST BE BASED ON FINDING OF ALARM, DANGER OR HARM TO PUBLIC GENERALLY - ORDER EXTENDING EXTERNMENT TO THREE REVENUE DISTRICTS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PURPOSE OF EXTERNMENT - NOT VALID.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the legality of an externment order passed against him under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that the order was not covered by the provisions of Section 56(a) and was based on irrelevant grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of externment was illegal and must be set aside on the following grounds: 1. The order was not covered by Clause (a) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as the reference to "alarm, danger or harm" in Clause (a) is a reference to the alarm, danger or harm to the public generally and not to one or two individuals in the public. 2. The order was partly based on a ground which was irrelevant to the notice served on the petitioner and which did not fall within the ambit of Clause (a) of Section 56 under which it was passed. 3. The order extending the externment to the three revenue districts of Sholapur, Poona, and Satara was not valid as the area of externment must be restricted to the requirement created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of externment was covered by Clause (a) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951? 2. Whether the order was based on relevant grounds? 3. Whether the order extending the externment to the three revenue districts was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reference to "alarm, danger or harm" in Clause (a) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is a reference to the alarm, danger or harm to the public generally and not to one or two individuals in the public. Therefore, an order of externment cannot be passed under Clause (a) merely on a finding that the movements or acts of a person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to one or two individuals in a locality. 2. The Court held that the order was partly based on a ground which was irrelevant to the notice served on the petitioner and which did not fall within the ambit of Clause (a) of Section 56 under which it was passed. Therefore, the order was bad in law. 3. The Court held that the area of externment must be restricted to the requirement created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed. Therefore, the order extending the externment to the three revenue districts was not valid.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the Divisional Magistrate and the State Government were set aside.
TARKUNDE, J. :- This petition has been filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of an order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, by the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and confirmed in appeal by the State of Maharashtra.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Pandharpur where he owns a cycle shop and considerable immovable properties. He also owns agricultural lands in an adjoining village. He is a married man with wife and children.
3. On or about 15th June 1967 the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pandharpur, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. It was alleged in the notice that because of the petitioner's illegal acts an atmosphere of danger and alarm had been created in Pandharpur city and the sorrounding area. Instances of nine illegal acts of the petitioner were given in paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (i) of the notice. It was also alleged in the notice that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner because of danger to their life and property. In response of the notice the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, filed a written statement and led evidence of some witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer then made a report to the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur Division, recomending the externment of the petitioner. The Divisional Magistrate heard the petitioner again and entertained further evidence given by him. On 17th February 1968 he passed the impugned order externing the petitioner from the revenue limits of the Sholapur district and adjoining districts of Poona and Satara for a period of two years from the date of the receipt of the order. The order was made under Section 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act. The reasons in support of the order were given in detail in a Note which was made by the Divisional Magistrate on the findings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The reasons given in the Note were referred to and summarised in the impugned order of the Divisional Magistrate.
4. The petitioner appealed to the State Government from the order of externment. The appeal was rejected on 20th June 1968. No reasons were given for rejecting the appeal.
5. As stated above, nine instances of illegal acts of the petitioner were given in Cls. 2 (a) to 2 (i) of the notice which had been issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The Divisional Magistrate found that, out of these allegations, the one in Cl. 2 (a) was disproved by the petitioner and those in Cls. 2 (b), 2 (c), 2 (d), 2 (f) and 2 (g) were too vague to enable the petitioner to make a representation in regard to them. Thus, in passing the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate relied only on the two grounds given in Cls. 2 (h) and 2 (i) of the notice. These clauses were :
"2(h): On 5-6-1967 you have slapped the Editor of 'Gophan' at Pandharpur for having published the news about the case against you for having murdered Vinabai. For that purpose a non-cognisable offence has been registered under S. 323 in Paniharpur Police Station No. 59 of 1967."
"2 (i): You have threatened and beaten the father of a witness on 6-6-1967 for having given evidence in the murder case against you. In that matter, an offence under Section 223-504 has been registered in Pandharpur Police Station No. 57 of 1967."
It appears that these allegations were made on the basis of statement made by two persons, Thite and Utpat, to the police. The Divisional Magistrate found that the statements of all persons other than Thite and Utpat were irrelevant to the order of externment which he was proposing to make. On the basis of the statements of Thite and Utpat the Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that the acts of the petitioner
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
