Externment orders must be supported by substantive evidence and adhere to principles of natural justice; failure to do so warrants quashing such orders.

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

4. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is raised to the order dated 01/09/2022 passed by respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daryapur, District : Amravati in Proceeding No.08/Anjangaon (Surji)/2022-23, whereby the petitioner has been externed from Amravati district for a period of six months.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a show cause notice for externment dated 10/08/2022 was issued to the applicant, wherein a chart was given in relation to the offences shown to have committed by the applicant, which in fact were not related with the petitioner and accordingly the reply was filed. Thereupon, the said error was rectified and another show cause notice dated 23/08/2022 was issued, wherein two offences were shown against the petitioner, out of which, in one the charge- sheet is filed and in another investigation is going on. It is submitted that both the offences alleged to have committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ajnangaon(Surji). He submits that despite the said fact, the externment order is passed for Amravati district and not restricted to Police Station, Anjangaon(Surji). It is further submitted that though in the impugned order there is a mention about calling of report on enquiry, however, it was never supplied to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to submit his say on the same, the impugned order came to be passed. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. is not disputing the said fact that the material on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has relied upon while passing the impugned order, was not supplied to the petitioner. However, he submits that he supports the impugned order.

7. In the backdrop of the above referred submissions made by both the parties, I have perused the impugned order and other documents filed along with the petition. It is pertinent to note here that in the initial show cause notice, dated 10/08/2022, four offences were shown to have been registered against the petitioner and on submission of reply by the petitioner that, those offences were not related with the petitioner, the second show cause notice dated 23/08/2022 was issued correcting the error.

8. The above referred fact speaks for itself that initiation of action of externment was itself based on error and misconception.

9. Furthermore, it can be seen from second show cause notice that there is only one offence in which the charge-sheet has been filed and in another matter the investigation is going on. Moreover, both the offences alleged to have committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Anjangaon (Surji). Thus, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has committed offences at different places in Amravati district. This is relevant, as it is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner has been externed not only from Anjangaon (Surji) but from entire Amravati district for six months. Thus, the order is excessive in nature.

10. Moreover, while passing the impugned order though the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has relied upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was never supplied to the petitioner.

11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Champatrao Bhapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2736 has observed thus:

“5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice with regard to allegations of giving threats to the person purchasing paper and plastic, was served. The notice shows that same incident is quoted twice and taken into ac