An externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act must include specific justifications for the duration imposed, ensuring no unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights occur.

JUDGMENT :

Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ravi B. Mungekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.G. Patil, learned APP for the State-Respondent.

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

3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19^th January, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Ulhasnagar, Thane, whereby the Petitioner was externed out of the limits of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban District, Thane District as well as Karjat and Panvel Talukas of Raigad District for a period of two years.

4. Learned APP raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioner had not approached the Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Appellate Authority was the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states with responsibility that when the Advocate for the Petitioner had approached to file the Appeal, the employees of their office were on strike; and therefore, the Appeal could not be filed and the Petitioner is left with no other alternative than to approach this Court directly.

6. Considering his statement, which is accepted as it is made solemnly across the bar, I am entertaining the Petition as it involves Petitioner’s right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

7. The Petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 19^th November, 2022 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. After that, the Petitioner gave his written submission. The material against him and the written statement was taken into consideration by the Externing Authority and the impugned order was passed. The material against him, which was considered by the Externing Authority, was three registered offences against him at Vitthalwadi Police Station and two statements recorded ‘in camera’ of the witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. It was observed that the activities of the Petitioner were causing alarm and threat to the people in the locality and that the witnesses not willing to come forward. The Petitioner was externed for a period of two years.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that C.R. No.401 of 2021 and 46 of 2021 registered at Vitthalwadi Police Station arose out of the family dispute with his cousin and no public was involved. He submitted that there was no occasion to initiate the externment proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that the activities alleged are confined to only Vitthalwadi Police Station and that he is externed from the larger area; which was not justified.

9. Learned APP submitted that the Externing Authority has rightly considered the material against the Petitioner and there is no infirmity in the order.

10. I have considered these submissions. The Petition deserves to be allowed solely on the ground that the Petitioner is externed for the period of two years and there is absolutely no subjective satisfaction or reason mentioned as to why he is externed for the maximum period of two years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others as reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 in paragraph No. 17, has held thus :

“17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an applic