Stale cases cannot be considered for externment orders, and pending proceedings must justify externment under the relevant legal provisions.

VASANTI A NAIK, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Nagpur, dated 17.4.2017 under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from Nagpur City and the adjoining rural areas for two years.

3. A notice was served on the petitioner under Section 59 of the Act asking him to show cause as to why he should not be externed under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act in view of the pendency of the offences against him under Section 307 of the Penal Code and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner submitted a reply and pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur that he had not committed any offence or such activities for which he could have been externed under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and the order of externment was passed against the petitioner under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act, externing him from Nagpur City and the rural areas for two years. The order of externment, dated 17.4.2017 is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

4. Mr. Karmarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted by taking this Court through the provisions of Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act that the impugned order of externment could not have been passed against the petitioner by resorting to the said provision. It is stated that the order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act could have been passed only if the Deputy Police Commissioner had a reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner had acted in any manner that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980. It is stated that the provisions of Section 56(1)(bb) could have been invoked by the Deputy Police Commissioner if the actions on the part of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the communities as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. It is stated that no proceedings are pending against the petitioner for the offence punishable under the Penal Code and the pending proceedings only pertain to the provisions of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It is stated that on the basis of the pendency of the cases under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act it cannot be said that the actions on the part of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order as defined under the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act or to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the communities. It is stated that, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. S.S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has fairly admitted that after 2014, the offences are registered against the petitioner only under the provisions of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and the said proceedings are pending. It is stated that even if the trial is pending against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, the same had commenced in the year 2000.

6. On a reading of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Police was not justified in passing the order of externment by invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The provisions of Section 56(1)(bb) read thus :

"56. Removal of persons