A. D. DESAI, J. B. MEHTA, N. M. MIABHOY, J.

( 1 ) THE following two points have been referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of two of us:- (1) What is the correct interpretation of the expression the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf as used in sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act; and (2) is respondent No. 1 specially appointed within the meaning of the above expression by the notification No. 6304/6 Home Department dated 1st August 1961 of the State of Bombay ?

( 2 ) THE main point which arises for determination in this case is a short one. It is what is the correct interpretation of the word specially used in sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 (hereafter called the Act ).

( 3 ) IN this case petitioner challenges the externment order Exhibit F dated 21st August 1966 passed by one Shri Thakkar Sub-Divisional Magistrate Baroda. The order was passed under sec. 56 of the Act directing petitioner to remove himself outside from the district of Baroda by a certain route within three days from the date of the receipt of the order and prohibiting him from entering or returning to the said district for a period of two years from the date of the order without his permission in writing or that of the District Magistrate Baroda. The externment proceedings were started as a result of a notice dated 21st August 1965 given to petitioner by one Shri Dhruv the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in charge of the city of Baroda on whose transfer subsequently Thakkar probably took charge. One of the grounds on which petitioner attacks the above order is the competence of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass the impugned order under sec. 56 of the Act. Therefore it is first necessary to read that section which is as follows:-56 Whenever it shall appear in areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend the provisions of this section to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant the said officer may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the said area or the areas and such contiguous district or part thereof as the case may be from which he was directed to remove himself. A plain reading of the section shows that the First part of the section mentions the officers who are competent to act under the section. The officers mentioned are (1) the Police Commissioner (2) the District Magistrate and (3) the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The powers of externment are not automatically conferred upon all these three officers. It is only the Police Commissioner who has been invested with the power under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document