The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders should be based on sufficient material and restricted to the area of illegal activity of the externee.

JUDGMENT

M G Sewlikar, J. - This is a writ petition fled under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 challenging the order of externment passed by the respondent no.4 and confrmed by respondent no.2.

2. By notice dated 30.9.2020 under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he should not be externed from the District Jalgaon as he is in the habit of committing offences relating to property and offences affecting human body. It is alleged that the offence under section 379 r/w 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner in Jalgaon Taluka police station. It is further alleged that offence under section 379 r/w section 34 vide crime no.54 of 2017 has been registered against the petitioner and others in Shanipeth Police Station. It is further alleged that Pravin Gokul Sapkale is a gang leader and the proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him in the year 2012 and 2018 in Jalgaon Taluka Police Station and Shani Peth police station respectively. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished his explanation. Said explanation did not fnd favour with the Externing Authority respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 externed the petitioner for a period of one year from the entire Jalgaon District vide order dated 28.9.2020.

3. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Division Nashik bearing Externment Appeal No.86 of 2020. Respondent no.2, the Divisional Commissioner, after giving hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 28.12.2020. This order is impugned in this writ petition.

4. We have heard Shri Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nerlikar, the learned APP for the State.

5. Learned counsel Shri Jadhav submitted that from the date of notice and passing of the order, period of two years has lapsed. This itself clearly indicates that there was no occasion to initiate the proceedings of externment against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the crime under section 379 read with section 34 vide crime no.54 of 2017 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, petitioner is not an accused. He submitted that there was no material before the Externing Authority and the appellate authority to extern the petitioner.

6. Learned APP submitted that there was ample material before the respondent no.4 and respondent no.2 for externing the petitioner. Petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of sand, which is a very serious offence and has caused environmental problems and, therefore, petitioner has been rightly externed. So far as the offence registered with Shanipeth Police Station is concerned, Shri Nerlikar the learned APP submits that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused.

7. On perusal of the police papers produced by the learned APP of respondent nos.2 and 4, it appears that notice was issued to the petitioner under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act in the year 2018. The record further shows that in the year 2020 the petitioner came to be externed. It clearly indicates that since 2012 till the issuance of notice, there was no offence registered against the petitioner of whatsoever nature, leave alone the offence under section 379 for theft of sand. On perusal of the police papers, it is further seen that on page no.37 the appellate authority/respondent no.4 has made a noting that notice was issued in the year 2018 and process was delayed for too long. Therefore, he sought details from the concerned police station as to the criminal activities of the petitioner after the issuance of the notice.

8. The concerned police station replied that no offence was registered thereafter against the petitioner. This clearly shows that without there being any material from the concerned police station about illegal activities of the petitioner, the petitioner has been directed to be externed for a period of one year that