IMPORTANT POINT
An externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act must be based on objective material demonstrating a live link between past actions and current threats, with proper verification of witness statements and adequate justification for the severity of the order.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

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

2. 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 dtd. 3/3/2022 and the order in appeal dtd. 17/2/2023 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 Sec. 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 hereinbelow in tabulated form:

3. Besides above crimes, the respondent No.2 placed heavy reliance upon the confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. On the basis of the crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent No.2 recorded a satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of Sec. 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Act of 1951 and as such warranting his externment.

4. The respondent No.2 conducted necessary inquiry. He issued a notice to the petitioner on 15/2/2022 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 3/3/2022. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 17/2/2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the said order.

5. I have heard Mr. S. B. Gandhe learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms Mayuri H. Deshmukh, learned APP 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 on the date of the notice and the order of externment out of the eight crimes the four crimes were under police investigation. Learned Advocate submitted that four 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 link between those crimes as well as the externment proceeding initiated in the year 2022. Learned Advocate further submitted that the statements of the confidential witnesses were not properly verified to place reliance on the same. Learned Advocate further submitted that in the show cause notice dtd. 15/2/2022 the substance of statement of the witnesses, was not stated. The petitioner, therefore, did not get an opportunity to deal with the show cause notice properly. Learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner had replied the notice vide reply notice dtd. 28/2/2022. Learned Advocate further submitted that two chapter cases, wherein the petitioner has executed bonds were taken into consideration. Learned Advocate further submitted that the order of externment from the entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years was excessive. Learned Advocate pointed out that no reasons have been recorded in the order for warranting the externment of the petitioner from entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years. On all these grounds the learned Advocate submitted that the order of externment passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents submitted that continuous indulgence in the commission of serious crimes till the issuance of show cause notice weighed with the respondent No. 2 to record the satisfaction that the movements and acts likely to cause danger or harm to the person or property. Learned APP on the basis of the statements of the confi