An externment order must demonstrate live link and application of mind for its maximum duration to align with constitutional rights.

Heard. Considering the controversy involved in the matter and by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Criminal Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner has been externed for a period of two years from entire Nagpur District vide order dated 18.02.2022 passed by respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Nagpur City. The externment order has been based on 12 prior offences, as has been set out in the externment order.

3. The impugned order is assailed on the ground of absence of live link, non supply of particulars of in-camera statements and no justification for imposing restriction for maximum period of two years. In support of said contention, the petitioner has relied on some reported judgments.

4. The State has justified the action of externment by filing reply-affidavit. It is contended that there are several offences registered against the petitioner which are of serious in nature. The last offence has been registered on 24.10.2020, whilst the first show cause notice was issued on 26.11.2020 in terms of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Police Act” for short), however, as the notice was not served, again it was re-issued on 25.05.2021 and 06.01.2022. In-camera statements have been recorded on 19.10.2021 and 21.10.2022. The petitioner remained present on 14.01.2022 and therefore, the impugned order passed on 18.02.2022 was well connected with the last offence, meaning thereby there exists a live link.

5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that several offences under Indian Penal Code have been registered against the petitioner from 19.01.2018 to 24.10.2020. It further reveals that time and again externment notice was tried to be served on the petitioner, however, the petitioner avoided which consumed some time. The learned A.P.P. has submitted a chart in tabular form to show efforts made by the Authority to serve the notice, and therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities were at fault meaning thereby absence of live link.

6. It is argued that particulars of in-camera statements have not been supplied to the petitioner, and therefore, the action vitiates. Though the petitioner is not entitled to have copies of in-camera statements, however, substance has to be informed to the petitioner to obtain his explanation. The petitioner has not filed copy of the show cause notice issued in terms of Section 59 of the Act to state that no particulars have been supplied. In absence of said material, it cannot be said that the particulars of in-camera statements have not been supplied, and therefore, the said submission carries no weight.

7. The last ground is about absence of reasons and non-application of mind while externing the petitioner for maximum permissible period of two years. In support of said contention, the petitioner has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Deepak .vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2022 SCC Online SC 99 , of which paragraph nos. 16 and 17 are relevant for our purpose, which reads as under :

“16. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:

“58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesa