The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for subjective satisfaction and reasonableness in passing externment orders, emphasizing the need for application of mind and the necessity of a reasoned order when directing externment from a larger area than the one of the illegal activities.

JUDGMENT

SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard fnally at admission stage.

2. The petitioner has fled this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pathri, Districit Parbhani i.e. respondent no.2 in the matter of 2021/MAG/Externment/Kavi, dtd. 17/09/2021 as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad i.e. respondent no.1 bearing Outward No.2021/GAD/Desk-1/Pol-1/Externment/CR-62, dtd. 07/12/2021.

3. Background facts are as under :

The petitioner is resident of village Kherda, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani and enshrined with the rights and privileges under the Constitution of India, 1950. Respondent no.3 had issued show cause notice dtd. 17/06/2021 to the petitioner mentioning that on the basis of three crimes for the offences under Chapter XVI of IPC and under the provisions of Atrocities Act, calling upon the petitioner as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act (in short 'the Act') from Parbhani District. The petitioner submitted reply dtd. 06/07/2021 to the said notice and claimed that the said notice was illegal since he was not yet charge-sheeted in any offence mentioned therein. Accordingly, he prayed for cancellation of said notice. However, respondent no.3 under notice dtd. 05/07/2021 under Sec. 56 of the Act, had called the petitioner for enquiry of the proposal of externment. Respondent no.2 thereafter considering the material on record and say fled by the petitioner, passed order dtd. 17/09/2021 and thereby externed the petitioner from the Talukas Parali and Majalgaon of Beed District, Talukas Ashti and Partur of Jalna District and entire Parbhani District for a period of one year. When the petitioner questioned the legality of the aforesaid order passed by respondent no.2 before respondent no.1 by way of Appeal No. 2021 / GAD / Desk-1 / Pol-1 / Externment / CR-62, respondent no.1 by dismissing the said appeal vide judgment dtd. 07/12/2021 confrmed the order of externment passed by respondent no.2. As such, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned orders by way of this writ petition. On perusal of the said notice dtd. 17/06/2021 issued by respondent no.2, it appears that following crimes as mentioned in the said notice as well as confdential statements of witnesses as regards the dangerous activities of the petitioner are considered for the externment. We would like to reproduce those crimes herein below :

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice as well as impugned orders have been issued and passed erroneously as the petitioner is not at all convicted in the aforesaid crimes, which are only at the stage of investigation. He further submits that registration of Crime No. 145 and 250 of 2021 against the petitioner, are only due to political reasons. He further submits that in the show cause notice dtd. 17/06/2021 the concerned authority did not mention about any in-camera statements of witnesses and therefore, the petitioner lost an opportunity of explaining the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that while passing the impugned orders, there was no sign of subjective satisfaction from the side of concerned authorities. Lastly, he submitted that even though the crimes mentioned in the show cause notice against the petitioner are from Pathri Taluka only, but the concerned authorities have externed the petitioner from larger area including portions of two districts viz. Beed and Jalna and also entire Parbhani District. As such, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of both the impugned orders about his externment as directed. Besides the oral submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on following judgments.

I) Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 4303;

II) Ajay @ Golu Shyam