IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Rajvardhan Kumar @ Rajvardhan Singh, Son Of Ravindra Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar, Through The Home Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.634 of 2024
Decided On : 03-05-2024
EXTERNMENT - Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 - Sections 2(d), 3(1), 6 - The court discussed the definitions and requirements under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, particularly focusing on the definition of 'anti-social element' in Section 2(d) and the conditions for externment under Section 3. The court emphasized that a person must habitually commit offenses to be classified as an anti-social element, and the lack of a sufficient nexus between past offenses and the externment order was highlighted. The court concluded that the order of externment was not justified and violated principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order issued by the District Magistrate, Khagaria, under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, claiming he was wrongfully declared an anti-social element without proper consideration of his responses and the relevant legal standards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the externment order was issued without adequate consideration of the petitioner's arguments and failed to establish that he was an anti-social element as defined by the Act. The court noted the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the notice and the absence of a clear connection between the alleged offenses and the externment order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was correctly classified as an anti-social element under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the issuance of the externment order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'anti-social element' requires habitual commission of offenses, which was not established in this case. The court also emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be upheld, and the lack of sufficient time to respond to the notice rendered the externment order invalid.
Final Decision: The court set aside the externment order dated 22.10.2023, concluding that it was a nullity in the eyes of the law and that the petitioner was not an anti-social element as defined by the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.
JUDGMENT :
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J.) :
This criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of externment dated 22.10.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, namely, the District Magistrate, Khagaria in B.C.C.A. Case No. 32 of 2023.
2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief(s):-
(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to show cause as to under what circumstances vide order dated 21.10.2023 the proceedings were carried out in such a haste that less than one day was provided to the petitioner to furnish a reply to the show cause issued against him.
(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent number 4 to show cause as to under what circumstances and on what grounds the proceedings against the petitioner was initiated under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.
(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Authorities to compensate the petitioner for the harassment and humiliation caused to the petitioner and his family members due to the unjust, arbitrary and manifestly illegal order passed by the Respondent Authority.
(v) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that by notice dated 21.10.2023, issued, in the exercise of power under Section 3(3) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, by respondent No. 2. namely, the District Magistrate, Khagaria, the present petitioner was directed to show cause, if any, as to why an order of externment be not passed against him.
4. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted show cause. The District Magistrate, Khagaria on the basis of material available expressed his satisfaction that the petitioner is an anti-social element under Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and he is dangerous to life and property of common public and hence, externment order was necessary. The District Magistrate, Khagaria directed that petitioner shall not enter into district of Khagaria for one month since the date of order of externment dated 22.10.2023. Further petitioner was directed to appear in person in Sadar Thana, Muzaffarpur in District Muzaffarpur on every day from 9 AM to 11 AM and 5 PM to 8 PM.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order of externment raised the question of principle of natural justice as notice was issued by respondent authority on 21.10.2023 and petitioner was directed to file show cause on 22.10.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that time gap between issuance of notice to the reply to said notice was less then 24 hours which clearly denotes that principle of natural justice has been made mere formalities just to overcome the impact of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that there must be a nexus between the date of offences which the petitioner is alleged to have committed and the date of impugned order of externment but in the instant case, the FIR is said to be registered in the year 2021 and 2022 whereas order of externment has been passed on 22.10.2023 which has no nexus and any basis. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has filed detailed reply to the show cause issued by the respondent authority but his reply was not at all considered and order of externment was passed mechanically by the respondent authority on 22.10.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that from perusal of
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427
Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 7 SCC 330
A person cannot be externed under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 unless they are classified as an anti-social element, which requires habitual commission of offenses, and the principles of nat....
The court highlighted the importance of objective material for recording subjective satisfaction to pass an order of externment, the need for compliance with principles of natural justice, and the ne....
Old and stale cases cannot be considered for externment, and there must be a live link between the activities and the necessity of externment. Specific findings and the recording of reasons are essen....
Externment orders under the Delhi Police Act can be justified based on habitual criminal behavior posing a danger to society, even if FIRs are not within a year of the order.
The delay in issuing an externment order does not necessarily invalidate the order if the live link for passing the order is maintained, and the authority has the power to prevent anti-social activit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders must satisfy the requirements of close proximity to the offense, objective consideration, and satisfaction of the District M....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.