An externment order must be based on objective material, comply with legal requirements, and be justified by extraordinary circumstances. It must also consider the execution and breach of bonds for good behavior and justify the externment duration and scope.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of externment passed by the respondent No. 2- Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati dated 13.05.2022 and the order in appeal dated 04.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati District Amravati. The respondent No. 2 initiated the proceedings for externment of the petitioner from Amravati District by invoking the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1951”). The respondent No. 2 to record his subjective satisfaction, relied upon the following crimes. The said crimes are set out herein-below in tabulated form:

PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

4. The respondent No. 2 conducted necessary inquiry. He issued a notice to the petitioner on 09.05.2022 to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the Amravati District. The respondent No. 2, based on the material collected, passed the order of externment on 13.05.2022. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 04.11.2022, though found certain deficiencies in the order of externment, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the said order.

5. I have heard Mr. S.B. Gandhe learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained at all as out of the ten crimes the petitioner was acquitted by learned trial Court in crimes at Sr Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6. Learned Advocate further submitted that in this case the crimes at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10 could not have been taken into consideration, inasmuch as the said crimes, on the date of the notice and the order of externment, were under investigation. Learned Advocate further submitted that the crimes at Sr. Nos. 8 and 9 are for the offences under the Arms Act and under the Act of 1951 and the crimes at Sr. No. 3, 5 and 7 are for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate submitted that these stale crimes were taken into consideration to record the subjective satisfaction. Learned Advocate submitted that these crimes could not have been considered for recording the subjective satisfaction. There was no live