The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a live link between the alleged offences and the necessity to pass orders for externment, as well as the restriction on the authority's jurisdiction to pass an order of externment only if the proposal contained incidents occurring immediately prior to the invoking of the authority's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Sa Menezes, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of externment dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana in terms of the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'). The order of externment has been imposed on the petitioners for a period of one year from the date of passing of impugned order.

3. The main grounds on the basis of which the order of externment has been challenged are as under :

(a) That the show cause notice dated 13.08.2022 which formed the basis for passing of the impugned order, itself being issued more than a year and two months after the last incident alleged against the petitioners in FIR No.166/2021, there was no live link between the offence alleged against the petitioners and the notice issued under Section 55(1) of the Act; thus, the respondent No.2 lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with any action under the Act;

(b) That the essential jurisdictional facts required for exercising jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Act did not exist as on the date of issuance of the show cause notice; moreso, in the light of the fact that there was not a single crime reported or registered against the petitioners between 06.05.2021 when the petitioners were last arrested in Crime No.163/2021 and the passing of the impugned order on 15.12.2022 and;

(c) That in view of total lack of explanation by the authorities under the Act, for the abnormal delay in filing proposal as on 09.08.2022 and the passing of the impugned order on 15.12.2022, the impugned order suffers from total arbitrariness and amounts to denial of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India; hence, the order is in direct contravention of the petitioners' fundamental rights freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India.

4. After service of notice of the petition on the respondents, no affidavit came to be filed by the respondent No.2 in support of the impugned order. Apart from supporting the findings of the subjective satisfaction recorded in the impugned order, the respondents have taken up a preliminary objection of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226, there being an alternate and equally efficacious remedy provided in terms of Section 60 of the Act, where the petitioner can take recourse to the filing of an appeal, if aggrieved by the impugned order. There is no explanation offered regarding the inordinate delay in filing proposal of externment of petitioners by the Police Station Khamgaon (Rural), District–Buldhana, as late as 09.08.2022 more than one year after the last offence alleged against the petitioners in FIR No.166/2021.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the petition.

6. Mr. Bhate, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the show cause notice on the basis of which the impugned order was passed relies upon eight crimes alleged against the petitioners who the respondents claimed are part of a gang of ten members ; the petitioners, who are father and son, have been alleged to have committed various offences, the last two of which are Crime No.165/2021 and 166/2021, both registered at Khamgaon (Rural), District – Buldhana ; he submits that in Crime No.166/2021, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, District – Buldhana. Prior to registration of Crime No.166/2021, the petitioner No.1 was arrested on 06.05.2021 in Crime No.163/2021, while, in a subsequent offence registered in Crime No.166/2021, no arrest was effected by the police. Effectively, more than a year has passed since the last arrest of the petitioners on 06.05.2021 and a year has elapsed since anticipatory bail was granted by order d