IMPORTANT POINT
An externment order under Sec. 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act requires a live link between recent criminal activity and the necessity for externment; significant delays in action can render such orders arbitrary and unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of externment dtd. 31/10/2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Amravati Rural, Amravati in terms of the provisions of Sec. 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (For short, 'the Act'). The order of externment has been imposed on the petitioners for a period of one year from the date of passing of impugned order.

3. The main grounds on the basis of which the order of externment has been challenged are as under:

a] That the show cause notice dtd. 26/09/2022 which formed the basis for passing of the impugned order, itself being issued more than a year after the last incident alleged against the petitioners in FIR No.456/2021 dtd. 25/06/2021, there was no live link between the offence alleged against the petitioners and the notice issued under Sec. 55 of the Act; thus, the respondent No.2 lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with any action under the Act;

b] That the essential jurisdictional facts required for exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 55 of the Act did not exist as on the date of issuance of the show cause notice; moreso, in the light of the fact that there was not a single crime reported or registered against the petitioners between 25/06/2021 and the passing of the impugned order on 31/10/2022 and;

c] That in view of total lack of explanation by the authorities under the Act, for the abnormal delay in filing proposal as on 06/08/2022 and the passing of the impugned order on 31/10/2022, the impugned order suffers from total arbitrariness and amounts to denial of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India; hence, the order is in direct contravention of the petitioners' fundamental rights freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

4. After service of notice of the petition on the respondents, an affidavit dtd. 05/02/2023 came to be filed by the respondent No.2 in support of the impugned order. Apart from supporting the findings of the subjective satisfaction recorded in the impugned order, the respondents have taken up a preliminary objection of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226, there being an alternate and equally efficacious remedy provided in terms of Sec. 60 of the Act, where the petitioner can take recourse to the filing of an appeal, if aggrieved by the impugned order. The affidavit of the respondents does not offer any explanation to the inordinate delay in filing proposal of externment of petitioners by the Police Station, Bramhanwada, Dist. Amravati as late as 06/08/2022 about one year and two months after the last offence alleged against the petitioners in FIR No.456/2021 dtd. 25/06/2021.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the petition.

6. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the proposal for externment of the petitioners, Brahmanwada Police Station, Dist. Amravati has relied upon 35 offences registered against the petitioners and 9 other persons, alleging that they are also part of a gang of thieves; all these offences are relating to theft of motorcycles during the year 2020-2021. He refers to the chart enumerating the offences contained in the impugned order, which, if perused would show that 35 offences have been investigated and are pending adjudication before the concerned Court. He submits that the last alleged offence is shown at Sr. No.30 of the chart, which is FIR No.456/2021 admittedly filed on 25/06/2021 and alleges that the petitioners, along with other eight accused were part of a gang, have committed offences under Ss. 379, 411, 465, 467, 470, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that since the offences are pending trial, there was no cause for the respondents to invoke the jurisdict