SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Bom) 226

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PENDSE, TIPNIS, JJ.
KAKA SHANKAR PATIL
VERSUS
K. P. RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS
Criminal Writ Petn. No. 877 of 1986,
Decided On : 13 -7 -1988

The Externing Authority must provide notice of the grounds for externment to the petitioner, and the consideration of material without notice renders the order unsustainable.

Headnote:

Bombay Police Act - Externment Order - The court quashed the order of externment on the grounds that the Externing Authority considered material of which no notice was given to the petitioner, rendering the order unsustainable.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was issued a notice for externment under the Bombay Police Act, based on pending cases and the petitioner being a known goonda. The petitioner appealed the order, claiming lack of material before the Externing Authority to support the grounds for externment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Externing Authority considered material without giving notice to the petitioner, rendering the order of externment unsustainable.

Issues: Notice of grounds for externment and consideration of material without notice to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Externing Authority must provide notice of the grounds for externment to the petitioner, and the consideration of material without notice renders the order unsustainable.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order of externment.

JUDGEMENT

Pendse, J.:- The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone III, Kalyan, District - Thane, issued notice dated April 20, 1986, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") calling upon the petitioner to show cause way order of externment should not be passed under Section 56 of the Act. The notice recites that four cases are filed against the petitioner and are pending in Court. The petitioner committed offences, as set out in the notice, under Chapter XVI-B of the Indian Penal Code and witnesses are not coming forward to depose out of fear as regards the safety of their person or property because the petitioner is a known goonda. The petitioner showed cause and, thereafter, the impugned order dated July 11, 1986 came to be passed. The petitioner was directed to be externed outside the limits of Thane, Greater Bombay and Raigad districts. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government, but it ended in dismissal and that has given rise to the filing of this petition.

2. Mr. Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there was no material before the Externing Authority to hold that the petitioner had assaulted people on the basis that they were police informants. The learned counsel urged that the impugned order sets out this fact as a ground for issuing the order of externment and notice of this ground was not given to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Act. We called upon Mr. Chopda appearing on behalf of the Externing Authority to point out any material in support of this claim and the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor was unable to do so. It is, therefore, obvious that the Externing Authority has taken into consideration material of which no notice was given to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the order of externment cannot be sustained.

3. Accordingly, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute and the impugned order of externment is quashed and set aside.

Rule made absolute.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top