The main legal point established in the judgment is that an externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction arrived at on the basis of objective material, and strict compliance with the legal provisions is necessary. Extraordinary circumstances are required to justify an externment order.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this criminal writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 13/7/2022 passed by the respondent No.1- Divisional Commissioner, Amravati confirming the order of externment passed by the respondent No.2 and also the order dtd. 9/5/2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Division-2, Amravati, whereby the petitioner is directed to remove himself outside the limits of Amravati District for a period of two years.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the petition can be summarized as follows: The respondent No.2 by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56 sub-sec. (1), clauses (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951" for short), ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Amravati District for a period of two years. The respondent No.2 to arrive at subjective satisfaction before passing the order, placed reliance on 19 crimes registered against the petitioner and others at various police stations within the limit of the Amravati City. The details of those crimes are as under:

4. The respondent No.2 apart from the above crimes, relied upon the confidential in-camera statements of the two witnesses. The above crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the two witnesses were found sufficient by the respondent No.2 to record his satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of Sec. 56(1) clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal before the respondent No.1 and challenged the said order. The respondent No.1 after granting an opportunity of hearing found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. The respondent No.1, therefore, rejected the appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court by filing this writ petition.

5. I have heard Mr. T.U. Tathod, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, learned APP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings.

6. Perusal of the petition would show that the petitioner has pleaded multiple grounds of challenge to the impugned orders. Mr. Tathod, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no concrete material on record to record the satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. The learned advocate submitted that the crimes relied upon to record the subjective satisfaction by the respondent No.2 are stale crimes. It is submitted that on the basis of those crimes, a live link has not been established to warrant the order of externment against the petitioner. The learned advocate further submitted that in the notice issued by the respondent No.2, 3 crimes in which the petitioner was acquitted were taken into consideration. The learned advocate pointed out that in reply to the show cause notice, this fact was specifically stated by the petitioner. The learned advocate submitted that despite having knowledge of this fact from the reply, these 3 crimes have been made basis to record the subjective satisfaction.

7. The learned advocate further submitted that the impugned orders suffers from the virus of excessiveness. It is pointed out that all the offences, relied upon, were registered at different police stations in the City of Amravati. The petitioner has been externed from the entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years. It is submitted that no reasons have been recorded to warrant his externment from the entire Amravati District for a period of two years and, as such, the orders suffer from virus of excessiveness.

8