SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
Adnan Mehboob Ali Sayyed - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Police - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Arfan Sait, Advocate, Mahesh S.Vadlakonda, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act can be upheld when there is sufficient evidence of a threat to public safety, and that authorities must demonstrate subjective satisfaction in their decisions.

Headnote:

EXTERNMENT - MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT - The court upheld the externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, emphasizing that the order was justified based on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities regarding the petitioner's activities posing a danger to public safety. The court found that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself and that the authorities acted within their legal framework.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an externment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which initially externed him from multiple districts for one year. The Appellate Authority later modified the order to restrict it to Thane District. The petitioner argued that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and that the externment was unnecessary.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the externment order was justified, as the petitioner had two registered offences against him, and the authorities had complied with the requirements of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court noted that the petitioner was given opportunities to represent himself and that the authorities acted based on the potential danger posed by the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the externment order was justified under the Maharashtra Police Act and whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the externment order was valid as it met the criteria set forth in Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, which allows for externment when an individual's activities pose a threat to public safety. The court emphasized the subjective satisfaction of the authorities and the adequacy of the petitioner's opportunity to respond.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the externment order as valid and justified.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Vadlakonda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.

3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 16/2/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Bhiwandi. By the impugned externment order, the Petitioner was externed from the Districts of Thane, Palghar, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai and Raigad for a period of one year. That order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai vide his order dtd. 26/6/2023 modified the externment order and the area of externment was restricted only to Thane District. The Petitioner has challenged these orders.

4. Before passing the externment order, the Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dtd. 25/7/2022 under Sec. 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act (for short, 'said Act') setting-forth the allegations against him. The Petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer on 3/8/2022 and submitted his reply. After considering his reply and the material against him, the impugned order was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had appeared before the inquiry officer on 3/8/2022. After that he was always available, but, he was not granted sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry report was tendered on 9/12/2022. The last date when the proceedings were conducted was 20/9/2022. The externment order was passed on 16/2/2023. This shows that there was no urgency shown by the authorities to pass the externment order immediately. This shows that there was no pressing necessity to extern the Petitioner outside those areas for a period of one year. He submitted that passing of an externment order is an extraordinary remedy and should be resorted only in exceptional cases. The present Petitioner's case is not in such a category. Passing of the externment order was not necessary.

6. He submitted that in the past chapter proceedings were initiated against him and the police authorities could have taken steps in those proceedings instead of passing the harsh externment order. He further submitted that the Petitioner is taking education. More than six months have passed out of the period of externment of one year. He submitted that even in the show cause notice, in respect of the statements of the witnesses recorded in-camera, only vague allegations are made and general particulars are not given thereby preventing him to make effective representation.

7. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to him, there is nothing wrong with the externment order. He submitted that, in fact, the Appellate Authority has shown leniency and the areas of externment order were reduced only to Thane District. He submitted that the Petitioner was not available for the inquiry and even after passing of the externment order. Therefore, the order could not be immediately served on him. It could be served on the Petitioner only in the month of April, 2023 though the order was passed in February, 2023.

8. He submitted that the externment order is a reasoned order and the externing authority has recorded his subjective satisfaction on all aspects under Sec. 56(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act. He submitted that the preventive measures taken under Sec. 107 of Cr.P.C. proved to be ineffective because he was directed to execute a bond for a period between 12/3/2021 to 12/3/2022 and yet, he committed an offence registered at Bhoiwada police station vide C.R. No.40/2022 on 14/2/2022 i.e. during subsistence of the said period.

9. I have considered these submissions and I have perused the show cause notice as well as the impugned externment order. There are two registered offences against the Petitioner at Bhoiwada police station i.e. C.R. No.65/2021 and 40/2022. The show-cause notice was issued on 25/7/2022, and, therefore, there was proximity of action taken against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top