The necessity of recording subjective satisfaction for externing a person for a maximum period of two years as per Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of both the parties.

2. Heard Ms. Rashi Sheth, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri. Patil, learned APP for the State/Respondent No. 1.

3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Pimpri Chinchwad; thereby externing the Petitioner from the limits of the Pimpri Chinchwad police Commissionerate, Pune City Police Commissionerate and Pune Rural for a period of two years.

4. The Petitioner was served with a notice dated 28/10/2021 U/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act asking him to show cause as to why he should not be externed out of the aforesaid area. The show-cause notice mentioned six registered offences from the year 2009 up to 2021 registered at Pimpri Chinchwad police station. C.R.No. 109 of 2015 registered with Ranjangaon police station had resulted in his acquittal. There was a reference to the statements of two witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ who were not willing to lodge the F.I.R. against the Petitioner. After this notice, another show-cause notice was served on him. That notice was dated 22/01/2022. The Petitioner was heard by the Enquiry officer. Considering the material produced before him, the Externing authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone- 1, Pimpri Chinchwad i.e. the Respondent No. 3 herein passed the impugned externment order dated 17/02/2022. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal U/s.60 of the Maharashtra Police Act which was also dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Externing Authority had taken into consideration the offences registered in the year 2009 and 2015 which were quite stale. The Petitioner was acquitted from the offence registered in the year 2015 i.e. C.R.No. 109 of Ranjangaon police station. She submitted that the first notice U/s.59 of the said Act was issued on 28/10/2021 and thereafter the Externment order was passed on 17/02/2022. Thus, there was considerable delay in passing the order which showed that passing of the order itself was not necessary. She finally relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 99 to contend that the externing authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing the externment order for a maximum period of two years. She submitted that, because of these infirmities the externment order is not sustainable.

6. Learned APP relied on the reasons mentioned in the externment order. He submitted that the Respondent No. 3 has recorded that the acts of the Petitioner had caused alarm in the mind of public and his acts amount to causing alarm, harm and danger to the public in general. On these grounds the Respondent No. 3 was satisfied that the Petitioner needed to be externed. He submitted that, these reasons themselves show that the externing authority had applied it’s mind for externing the Petitioner for a maximum period of two years.

7. I have considered these submissions carefully. In my opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed on the last submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the externing authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction for externing the Petitioner for a maximum period of two years. In this context, paragraph-17 of the aforementioned Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is important; which reads thus:

“17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under