The court emphasized the need for sufficient material and fair consideration in externment matters, especially when involving political figures. It held that the order of externment cannot sustain in law due to insufficiency of material and malice.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order of externment made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhoom, District Osmanabad and dated 11.1.2019. The order is made in the File No 218/Externment/CR-66. The order of Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad made in appeal filed against the said order of externment is also challenged in the present proceeding.

3. The petitioner is resident of Andrud, Tahsil Bhoom, District Osmanabad and the externment order is made in respect of entire Osmanabad district, Jamkhed tahsil of Ahmednagar, Barshi and Karmala tahsils from Solapur district and Beed and Patoda tahsil from Beed district. The period of externment would be two years.

4. In show cause notice dated 10.8.2018 issued under section 59 of Bombay Police Act, six crimes punishable under different provisions of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) were mentioned and the particulars of these crimes are as under :-

5. The show cause notice shows that on the date of notice, the petitioner was active worker of political party Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and he was elected member of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. From the year 2012 till today there is coalition Government in this State of political parties Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and Shivsena. In show cause notice, it is mentioned that with his associates, the petitioner was harassing people of the village. It is contended that they were giving abuses, they were assaulting and they were giving threats to villagers. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was molesting ladies of the village and he was helping the others to kidnap minor girls. It is mentioned that he had created terror in the village and due to his fear, people of this village were not approaching police to give complaints. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that the people of the tahsil Washi and of vicinity were not able to move freely due to fear of petitioner and the petitioner was attempting to commit breach of public peace. It is mentioned that he was instigating the people to agitate against the public servants and he was pressurizing the public officers to do the illegal acts. In show cause notice, it is mentioned that cognizable offences of aforesaid nature were registered against the petitioner and his criminal tendency was increasing. In show cause notice, the opinion of the officer that it has become necessary to extern the petitioner from five districts like Osmanabad, Ahmednagar, Solapur, Beed and Latur for two years period to prevent him from committing serious offences and also for the purpose to see that he improves his conduct, was mentioned. He was asked to show cause as to why such externment order should not be passed against him and he was called upon to produce the material in support of his contentions.

6. This Court is first addressing the facts mentioned in the show cause notice and also the order. A copy of judgment delivered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhoom in R.C.C. No. 142/2007 on 8.11.2010 is produced in this proceeding. This case was filed in F.I.R. No. 26/2007 which is mentioned in the show cause notice. This document shows that the allegations of molestation were made against accused No. 1 of that case and not against the present petitioner, who was accused No. 2. There was also no allegation that the petitioner had entered the house of victim along with accused No. 1. Only after the incident was over and the victim had come out of the house, she had noticed, according to her, the present petitioner outside of the house and after that accused No. 1 had talk with accused No. 2. Allegations were made that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had then given threat to her not to disclose the incident to anybody. However, the incident was disclosed by giving report and the case was filed against both the accused for offence of molestation. When the case was tr