Point of Law: Externment order – Show cause notice - It is necessary to give reasons for such externment from the adjoining Talukas or Districts, where there is no offence registered against the proposed externee.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.:

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive prayer clauses:

“(c) That the Impugned Order dated 24/02/2021 passed by Respondent No.1 in Externment/Appeal/SR/EA_5/2021 be quashed and set aside.

(d) That the Impugned Order of Externment dated 06/01/2021, bearing no.03/2021, passed by the Res. No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune City, Pune be quashed and set aside.”

3. The brief facts leaving to the filing of this petition are as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents issued externment order on the basis of the same material which was considered as the basis to initiate the externment proceedings earlier which were subsequently dropped. On 28.5.2019, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide an externment order as to why he should not be externed from the area which was mentioned in the notice. Pursuant to the said notice, the proceedings were initiated, however, on 24.1.2020, the said proceedings were dropped. Again on 3.9.2020, another notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, on 2.10.2020, on the basis of the report received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued notice to the petitioner. After hearing the parties, on 6.4.2021, the impugned externment order was issued by respondent No.3 thereby externing the petitioner for two years from the area mentioned in the notice and the impugned order.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act alongwith stay application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of externment is excessive. Secondly, there is no live link between the alleged offences registered against the petitioner and initiation of the externment proceedings. Thirdly, the earlier externment proceedings, on the same material, were dropped by the respondent – authorities and, therefore, there was no reason to initiate the proceedings on the basis of the same material. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that the petition may be allowed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgements:

1] Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.41 of 2018);

2] Subhash Ganu Bhoir v/s K. P. Raghuwanshi & ors, (1987(1) Bom. C. R. 425);

3] Ravi s/o Raju Bhalerao v/s State of Mah. (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4646);

4] Sadashiv P Gondhalkar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.1032 of 2017);

5] Kailas D. Kolpe v/s. Div. Commissioner, Nashik, (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4517);

6] Narayan M. Khilani v/s State of Mah. (1986 (1) Bom. C.R. 122);

7] Anna Bhimrao Dhavale v/s State of Maharashtra and others; (2016 DGLS (Bom) 1196);

8] Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Police & ors. (2016 All MR (Cri) 3056);

9] Aslam /o Shabbir Shaikhy v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. (2017 All MR (Cri) 3736);

10] Zumbar s/o Goroba Kadam vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2017 All MR (Cri) 843);

11] Bilal Gulam Rasul Patel v/s Div. Magistrate & others, (Cri. WP No.3950 of 2013)

6. Ms.Pai, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State, relying upon the reasons recorded in the impugned order of externment and also by the appellate authority, submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.

7. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the l