Ms P.N. Lakhani, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms S.V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for Respondents.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

Heard. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives notice for Respondents. By their consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 and order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner was externed from two Districts for a period of six months.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

The petitioner was externed under Section 56[1][a][b] of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). The order of externment is based on 7 crime which are as under :

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case principles of natural justice have been grossly violated. She further submits that it is a matter of personal liberty wherein principles of natural justice ought to have been followed while conducting enquiry under Section 59 of the Act. It is submitted that though notice was issued to the petitioner, the same was not served on him. Section 59 of the Act reads as under :

“59. Hearing to be given before order under sections 55, [56, 57 or 57A] is passed -

(1) Before an order under sections 55 [56, 57 or

57A] is passed against any person the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorized by that officer shall inform that person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application; and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation of delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by an advocate or attorney for the purpose of tendering his explanation and examining the witness produced by him.

(2) The authority or officer proceeded under sub section [1] may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under sections 55, [56, 57 or 57A] require such person to appear before him and to pass a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to pass the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed.”

5. It seems from this Section that it is an important Section wherein the externee has been granted opportunity to put his case. Section 59 of the Act cannot be bye-passed. The order of externment depends on the enquiry conducted under said Section. If the enquiry under Section 59 of the Act is conducted without giving an opportunity to the externee, the entire proceeding stands vitiated.

6. The learned A.P.P. fairly conceded to the position that though notice under Section 59 is issued to the petitioner, but, the same could not be served and report was submitted to the Sub Divisional Police Officer.

7. Considering the fact th