The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951, and the importance of subjective satisfaction in externment orders.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsels for respective parties.

2 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner prays to set aside the order dated 08.09.2021, passed by Respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nandurbar in Externment Proposal No. 02/2021 and also order dated 21.12.2021, passed by Respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Externment appeal No. 110/2021. Under the impugned orders, the petitioner has been externed from entire Nandurbar district for the period of eight months under Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951, (herein after referred to as the 'said act').

3 according to the petitioner, he was served with notice under Section 59 of the said act mentioning, as to why he should not be externed from Nandurbar district, since pendency of so many criminal cases against him, as mentioned in the said notice. Thereafter, Respondent No.3, on the basis of said notice, passed an order dated 08.09.2021 and thereby externed the petitioner, as aforesaid, by holding that the petitioner always indulges in criminal activities which causes breach of law and order in the area.

4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing Externment appeal No. 110/2021 before Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner but the same has been rejected vide order dated 21.12.2021.

5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both these impugned orders are prima facie illegal and without application of mind. Moreover, these orders are excessive in nature since the criminal activities alleged against the petitioner are restricted only to Navapur Police Station, but the petitioner has been externed from entire Nandurbar district. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that old crimes are considered for externment of the petitioner even in the absence of live-link. He further submits that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the crimes mentioned in the impugned order, but, on the contrary, he has been acquitted on merits by the Special Judge, Nandurbar in Special (atrocity) Case No. 11/2017 arising out Crime No. 206/2017. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also tendered copy of the judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, in Sessions Case No. 08/2021, passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, acquitting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) (r) (s) 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989. However, subsequent acquittal of the petitioner, after passing of the impugned order, has no bearing on the adjudication of this matter.

according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, nature of crimes against the petitioner is individualistic and in two cases, there is one and the same informant. Said informant has also filed affidavit in respect of trial of Crime No. 959/2020, to the effect that he does not want to proceed with his complaint as it was filed due to misunderstanding. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the authorities below did not appreciate the material on record and wrongly concluded that the petitioner is involved in serious criminal activities causing serious problem of law and order. The learned Counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned orders.

6 Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on following judgments:

(i) In the case of Sumit s/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Nagpur & another, 2019 (2) MhLJ 745;

(ii) In the case of Rahmat Khan alias Rammu Bismillah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2021 SCC Online SC 641;

(iii) In the case of Praful Bhausaheb Yadav Vs. Shri K. K. Pathak, Principal