The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of satisfaction of the Externing Authority before issuing an order of externment under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

PRAKASH D. Naik, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for Respondents – State.

The petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 30th December, 2014 issued by respondent no.1 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short “the said Act”) as well as the order dated 9th April, 2015, passed by respondent no.3 dismissing the Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 60 of the said Act.

2. The factual matrix of the petition is as follows:-

(a) The Assistant Commissioner of Police Deonar Division, Mumbai had issued a show-cause notice dated 28th June, 2014 under Section 59 of the said Act. In the said show-cause notice, it was mentioned that it is proposed to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from Greater Bombay Suburban and Thane Districts. The show-cause notice refers to the statement of two persons recorded in-camera. It is further stated that the acts and movements of the petitioner are causing alarm, harm and danger to the peace living citizens and the businessmen in the area referred to therein. It is further mentioned that the witnesses referred to as witnesses (a) and (b) whose statements are recorded in-camera are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner in public. It is also mentioned that the citizens in the respective areas are not willing to complain against the petitioner on account of fear.

(b) The petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer and submitted his oral as well as written reply. Inquiry officer forwarded his report to the Externing Authority for further action.

(c) Pursuant to the aforesaid inquiry, an order of exernment was issued on 30th December, 2014 by the respondent no.1. In the said order, reference was made to the cases registered and pending against the petitioner. It is further mentioned that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against him on account of fear that there will be danger to their persons and properties. The Externing Authority had externed the petitioner from the area of Mumbai suburban and Thane District for a period of two years.

(d) The Petitioner challenged the order of externment by preferring an Appeal under Section 60 of the said Act. The said Appeal was rejected by order dated 9th April, 2015.

3. In view of the aforesaid order of externment and disposal of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner, he has preferred the present petition by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of externment has been issued without application of mind. He submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the well established principles of law and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the order of externment has been issued under Section 56 (1)(a) and (b) of the said Act. He pointed out that in the notice, it is mentioned that the witnesses referred to in paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the notice are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner openly on account of the terror created by him. He submitted that the said averments which is reflected in paragraph 4 of the show-cause notice pertains to the in-camera statements of two witnesses referred as witnesses (a) and (b). He submitted that the show-cause notice does not refer to the mandatory requirement for initiating the proceedings under Section 56 (1)(a) and (b) that the witnesses are not wiling to come forward to depose against the externee on account of fear. He submitted that the said satisfaction is referred to in the notice qua the aforesaid two witnesses and not in respect to the other allegations. He further submitted that the order of externment, however, refers to the satisfaction qua the entire allegations which are covered by Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petition