The externment order must be based on substantive evidence of a threat to public order, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.05.2025 JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of externment dated 04.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 externing the petitioner for a period of 09 months from the District of Chandrapur.

3. In the instant matter, respondent No.2, sent a proposal for the externment of the petitioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act , 1951. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer was appointed to investigate the externment proposal. The petitioner provided a written explanation addressing each antecedent considered for his externment. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer issued a show cause notice, which was received by the petitioner in order to explain as to why he should not be externed. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner also filed written submissions against the case which was made out against him. After considering the evidence and hearing both the sides, the respondent No.3 issued an order of exterment against the petitioner on 04.03.2025.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner objected to the said order on the following grounds, namely –

(a) That, the show cause notice is silent on the fact that the witnesses are not willing to depose against the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Chaudhari vs. State [991 SCC OnLine Bom 186] .

(b) That, the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in no manner elucidates that the petitioner is a threat to the public order, furthermore, there is no justification as to how the respondents arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is a threat to the public at large. Hence, subjective satisfaction reached at by the externing authority stands vitiated.

(c) That, the respondents had initiated similar proceedings against the petitioner in 2023, which came to be quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2023.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that to pass an order of externment, there should be reasonable material on record to show that such person is a habitual offender and the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the offences levelled against him by the concerned Court, hence, the petitioner holds a clean record. It was further submitted by the petitioner that stale offences have been taken into consideration in order to pass the externment order against the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are without any merit and the externment order has been properly passed by following the procedure as provided in the Maharashtra Police Act , 1951. The Respondents submit that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned externment order under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act , making this writ petition not maintainable.

7. The Respondents further submitted that despite taking preventive actions against the petitioner, two more criminal cases came to be registered against him vide First Information Report Nos. 44/2025 and 45/2025. Moreover, it is the stance of the Respondents that even though the Writ Petition against the petiti