Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O. Mahadev Limkar vs Dnyaneshwar S/O. Sopan Gite And Others on 10 June, 2019
Author: T.V. Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane
Cri.W.P.No.699/2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2019
Dnyaneshwar s/o. Sopan Gite,
Age 35 years, Occu. Lecturer,
Agril. & Member of Z.P. Osmanabad,
R/o. Andrud, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad.
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
4. Sub-Divisional Police Officer Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondents.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel I/b. Mr. K.R. Doke, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1853 OF 2019
Rahul s/o. Mahadev Limkar,
Age 28 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Andrud, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Dnyaneshwar s/o. Sopan Gite,
Age 35 years, Occu. Lecturer,
Agril. & Member of Zilla Parishad
Osmanabad,
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 :::
Cri.W.P.No.699/2019
2
R/o. Andrud, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
3. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
5. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondents.
Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel I/b. Mr. K.R. Doke, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 10/06/2019.
JUDGMENT :[PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) The proceeding is filed to challenge the order of externment made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhoom, District Osmanabad and dated 11.1.2019. The order is made in the File No 218/Externment/CR-66. The order of Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad made in appeal filed against the said order of ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 3 externment is also challenged in the present proceeding.
3) The petitioner is resident of Andrud, Tahsil Bhoom, District Osmanabad and the externment order is made in respect of entire Osmanabad district, Jamkhed tahsil of Ahmednagar, Barshi and Karmala tahsils from Solapur district and Beed and Patoda tahsil from Beed district. The period of externment would be two years.
4) In show cause notice dated 10.8.2018 issued under section 59 of Bombay Police Act, six crimes punishable under different provisions of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) were mentioned and the particulars of these crimes are as under :-
v-dz iks-LVs-ps uako xqjua- dye fudky
1 ok'kh 26@2007 452]354]506]34 Hkknfo U;k;izfo"B
2 ok'kh 80@14 395]307]323]504]506]34 Hkknfo riklkoj
lg d&4] 25¼1½ ¼M½ Hkk-g-dk
3 ok'kh 25@2016 353]341]143]147]149]120¼c½ riklkoj
Hkknfo lg d&135 eqiksdk
4 ok'kh 198@2017 363]366¼v½ 34 Hkknfo riklkoj
5 tstqjh ft- iq.ks 127@2012 363] 34 Hkknfo U;k;izfo"B
6 Hkwe 46@2018 307]341]120¼c½ 504] 34 Hkknfo riklkoj
lg d&4] 25 Hkk-g-dk lu&1959
5) The show cause notice shows that on the date of notice,
the petitioner was active worker of political party Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and he was elected member of Zilla Parishad, ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 4 Osmanabad. From the year 2012 till today there is coalition Government in this State of political parties Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and Shivsena. In show cause notice, it is mentioned that with his associates, the petitioner was harassing people of the village. It is contended that they were giving abuses, they were assaulting and they were giving threats to villagers. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was molesting ladies of the village and he was helping the others to kidnap minor girls. It is mentioned that he had created terror in the village and due to his fear, people of this village were not approaching police to give complaints. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that the people of the tahsil Washi and of vicinity were not able to move freely due to fear of petitioner and the petitioner was attempting to commit breach of public peace. It is mentioned that he was instigating the people to agitate against the public servants and he was pressurizing the public officers to do the illegal acts. In show cause notice, it is mentioned that cognizable offences of aforesaid nature were registered against the petitioner and his criminal tendency was increasing. In show cause notice, the opinion of the officer that it has become necessary to extern the petitioner from five districts like Osmanabad, Ahmednagar, Solapur, Beed and Latur for two years period to prevent him from committing serious offences and also for the purpose to see that he improves his conduct, was mentioned. He was asked to show cause as to why ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 5 such externment order should not be passed against him and he was called upon to produce the material in support of his contentions.
6) This Court is first addressing the facts mentioned in the show cause notice and also the order. A copy of judgment delivered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhoom in R.C.C. No. 142/2007 on 8.11.2010 is produced in this proceeding. This case was filed in F.I.R. No. 26/2007 which is mentioned in the show cause notice. This document shows that the allegations of molestation were made against accused No. 1 of that case and not against the present petitioner, who was accused No. 2. There was also no allegation that the petitioner had entered the house of victim along with accused No. 1. Only after the incident was over and the victim had come out of the house, she had noticed, according to her, the present petitioner outside of the house and after that accused No. 1 had talk with accused No. 2. Allegations were made that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had then given threat to her not to disclose the incident to anybody. However, the incident was disclosed by giving report and the case was filed against both the accused for offence of molestation. When the case was tried, the first informant, victim gave evidence that there was settlement of dispute. She gave specific evidence that accused No. 2 was not at all involved in the incident. The judgment shows that prior to registration of this crime, ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 6 rape case was filed against the husband of first informant of C.R. No. 26/2007 and she was feeling that present petitioner and accused No. 1 were behind the registration of that crime and she wanted to see that the case filed against her husband was withdrawn. She gave specific evidence that accused No. 2 was not involved in the incident of molestation in any way. In view of these circumstances, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted by the Court. The file of externment proceeding does not show that this judgment of acquittal and aforesaid facts are considered by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and even by the appellate authority. When the case was decided in the year 2010 and there were aforesaid circumstances, the authorities ought to have called that material, ought to have considered that material before mentioning this C.R. even in show cause notice. There was no other material to form the opinion that he was involved in harassing ladies or girls of any place, but in spite of that, it is mentioned in show cause notice that he was harassing the ladies and he was involved in the offences of molestation and rape. The use of C.R. No. 26/2007 itself shows that there was malice.
7) A copy of chargesheet filed in C.R. No. 80/2014, the second offence mentioned in show cause notice shows that the petitioner was accused No. 1, but police filed 'B' Summary Report by ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 7 reporting that it was a false complaint made by close relative of the present petitioner and there was some personal dispute between the two. It was dispute over immovable property. The show cause notice and the order of externment do not show that these circumstances were considered by the appellate authority or by the officer. The use of this crime also shows that there is malice behind the order.
8) A copy of report given by Police Inspector who was investigating C.R.No. 25/2016 (3rd crime) is on record. It shows that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not present on the spot. The Investigating Officer made enquiry with many witnesses and he formed opinion that no accused had taken the name of petitioner as a person, who had instigating them or for whom they were acting. The report dated 6.2.2016 shows that revenue officer who had felt that they were obstructed by mob had not cooperated the police during investigation and they had not come forward to give the statements. Even when the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of incident and as the mob was demanding only creation of shelter for cattle, these circumstances ought to have been considered by the officer who issued show cause notice and passed the order. In those days, there was drought in the area and there was demand of creating cattle shelters. No other record is there against the petitioner to show that he was acting against the public ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 8 officers. There is record like crime registered against a police inspector for offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and that report was given by the present petitioner against the police officer but that trap was successful. That circumstance could not have been considered against the present petitioner.
9) Copy of F.I.R. No. 198/2017 (4 th crime) is on record. It shows that a minor daughter of informant was kidnapped by one Sanjay Chavan. The father of Sanjay was probably working as a labour in the field of petitioner. As per the contentions made in the record, it is the petitioner who produced Sanjay and the victim girl in the police station after learning about the incident. However, in the F.I.R., the name of petitioner was taken and suspicion was expressed that he had probably helped Sanjay in the said act. Though the petitioner was not apparently involved in the incident and the crime was apparently committed by son of his labour, that circumstance is considered against the petitioner by the officer for passing externment order. These circumstances also show that there was non application of mind by the officer. Registration of crime only cannot give ground for passing order of externment and this proposition finds support in the record of C.R. No 198/2017.
10) Copy of judgment delivered by Magistrate in R.C.C. No. ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 9 84/2015 is on the record and it shows that the case was filed in C.R. No. 127/2012 (fifth crime). This record shows that the person who was allegedly taken away forcefully was nephew of the informant. The record shows that there was grievance that even after taking a big amount for cutting the sugarcane, the father of the said youngster, who was major, had not done that work and over that, there was some dispute. Allegations are made that incident took place out of that dispute. Copy of judgment shows that in the Court, no evidence was given by the prosecution witnesses against the petitioner. The said boy gave evidence that he was not kidnapped/abducted and at the relevant time, he had gone to the place of his relative, but due to misunderstanding report was given by his uncle. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner and other accused were acquitted. In view of nature of dispute and the circumstance that the petitioner was acquitted, the officer ought to have considered the circumstance carefully. It was a dispute of private nature and there was acquittal.
11) The record of C.R. No. 46/2018 (the last crime) shows that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not present on the spot. It is the contention of the police that the persons who were present on the spot had supplied information that they were men of petitioner. Though section 307 of IPC is used in this recently ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 10 registered crime, as per the record, the injuries were minor, simple. This crime was registered when there was election to Maharashtra Legislative Council and the members of Zilla Parishad were the voters for this election. The petitioner was voter and due to the registration of the crime, he could have been prevented from voting in that election. In view of these circumstances, this Court had granted relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. At the time of granting anticipatory bail, the nature of injuries and the probability that there was no intention of murder were considered and this Court formed opinion that there was probability that only to prevent the petitioner from voting, the crime was registered. These circumstances are not properly considered and only registration of the crime is considered by the officer for passing the externment order.
12) Surprisingly, the aforesaid material was held to be sufficient by the officer and externment order was made. The petitioner is M.A., B.Ed. and he is working as a lecturer in Junior College. It is his case that he is doing the social work and for social work, he has entered the politics. It is his case that due to his work and popularity, there are some enemies made by him in politics and only due to politics he came to be involved in aforesaid incidents and the order of externment is also passed out of such politics. There is ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 11 force in this contention in view of the circumstances already quoted by this Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that in the year 2013 he had given report against one Police Inspector to Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) and after taking action, A.C.B. had caught red handed the Police Inspector while accepting bribe and due to that, some police officers are also interested in taking action against him and that is why, the submission was made for making the externment order and such order is made against him. Such probability cannot be ruled out in the present matter. The circumstances already quoted are sufficient to infer that there is malice.
13) The learned APP submitted that the aforesaid material was more than sufficient and on that basis, the subjective sanctification of the officer was based and so, this Court is not expected to interfere in the matter. The learned APP placed reliance on observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1002/2017 decided with other matters on 8.2.2019 at Nagpur Bench [Sumit s/o. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe and Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.]. He placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1973 SC 630 [Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 12 Maharashtra].
14) In Criminal Writ Petition 1002/2017 the Full Bench of this Court considered two points referred to it and they were as under :-
"(1) Where the activities of externee are confined to specific area of the local limits of the jurisdiction of a police station in a district but the order of internment extends to the entire district, rural areas and even beyond the district or districts (irrespective of the fact that it is contiguous or not) whether such an order needs to show the existence of material - (a) that a larger or additional area so chosen or selected is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common means of transport and communication system, (b) that the facts or the material warranting externment from a larger or additional area or neighbouring area exist, and (c) that the externing authority has applied its mind to the factors (a) and (b) while passing an order of externment?
(2) Whether it is necessary to state in the show cause notice the details of incamera statements recorded by the externing authority to reach to the satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence or depose in public against the proposed externee due to fear of alarm, danger or harm to their person or ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 13 property?"
In paragraph Nos. 26 and 45, the findings are given by the Full Bench and they are as under :-
"26. The discussion made so far would lead us to record our conclusions as follows :
(i) The externment order directing externment of a person from a much larger area than the one of his illegal activities, must be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction regarding the need for externing a person to an expanisve area though it may not always directly or elaborately refer to that material in the order itself, as it all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case which need be vetted through the judicial process of drawing of legitimate inference following the law of Pandharinath and Sanjeev @ Brittoo (supra).
(ii) The order of externment need not
necessarily refer to the details of the
material considered by it so as to show
independently that larger or additional area chosen by it is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 14 due to improved or common means of transport and communication.
(iii) Application of mind to the material present on record by the authority passing the externment order is necessary, but any reflection of application of mind in the externment order in a specific manner, as if to pass a reasoned order, would not be necessary. It would be enough if the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by considering the material available on record and it would and should be a matter of legitimate inference that the authority, while considering materials to satisfy itself about the need for the extent of externment to be ordered, also considered all the options available to it and selected in it's wisdom the one which it thought to be most appropriate. This would also mean that authority, in this way, can select a larger area for being covered under it's externment order, as one of the options available to it, whether such larger area has within it contiguous or interconnected or intimately connected pockets of ares or not.
Question no. (1) having there aspects enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c), is answered specifically though the three conclusions made as above.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 15
45. Having comprehended clearly the issues central to second question of reference, it is time for us to formalize the answer to it and it is as follows :
It is not necessary to state in the showcause notice the details or the particulars of incamera statements recorded by the externing authority and only the general nature of material allegations is all that is necessary to be said in the showcause notice. In other words, it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of law if the show cause notice refers in general terms to the material allegations against the proposed externee and when the action is under Section 56 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951 it also generally says that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee due to fear, alarm, danger or harm to the person or property, as the case may be."
The case of Pandharinath cited supra was considered by the Full Bench and other cases of Supreme Court are also considered. There cannot be dispute over the proposition quoted above.
15) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 16 reliance on the observations made in the following reported case :-
(i) 2010(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 778 [Gulshan Arif Tase Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division],
(ii) 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 194 [Vinayak Dynaneshwar Mainkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.],
(iii) 1993(1) Mh.L.J. 816 [Prakash Supdu Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.],
(iv) 2013(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 329 [Praful Bhausaheb Yadav Vs. K.K. Pathak and Ors.],
(v) 2002 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 644 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) [Shailendrasingh @ Litil Sardar Gurucharansingh Lohiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.],
(vi) 1992 (1) Mh.L.J. 225 [Nanhekhan Gulabkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.].
16) The aforesaid cases cited for the petitioner are on the points of necessity to follow the principles of natural justice and for that mentioning the relevant material available before the officer for passing the order of externment, giving of sufficient opportunity to the proposed externee in the externment proceeding to have his say, in some way to make aware the proposed externee about the material from incamera statements and that may be of general information etc. It is laid down that only pendency of some criminal cases cannot be ground for externment and there needs to be tangible material as mentioned in section 56 of the Bombay Police ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 17 Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for externment.
17) In the present matter, a person from political party which is not in power, is involved as externee and he has made allegations of malice against the respondents. There are aforesaid circumstances supporting the allegation of malice. This Court has gone through the law developed on the matter of externment and this Court feels that there is need of reiteration of law already laid down. This is because the officer or the Executive Magistrate and also the appellate authority under the Act need to act fairly and they should not get influenced by the persons in power. Though the order of externment is administrative order and detail reasons are not required to be given, considering the nature of rights involved of the externee, the proper care needs to be taken by the concerned so that there is no suppression of opposition by the ruling party and by such order directly or indirectly no harm is caused to the democracy of our country. The facts of the present matter show that the order of externment made by the officer was stayed by the appellate authority and stay was continued till the decision of the appellate authority. However, this Court did not grant stay after filing of the present proceeding and due to that the petitioner could not campaign for his political party for the election to the parliament. So, ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 18 the following discussion.
18) The externment order is made on the grounds given in section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. That provision is as under :-
"56. Removal of persons about to commit offence :
(1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area of areas to which the State Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate 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 "
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 19
19) Sections 58 and 59 of the Act are relevant and they provide for the area in respect of which the externment order can be made and maximum period for which the externment order can operate. They also provide for following the principles of natural justice, by providing that hearing needs to be given to proposed externee. The provisions of sections 58 and 59 are as under :-
"58. Period of operation of order under Section 55, 56, 57 and 57 A :
A direction made under Section 55, 56, 57 or 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any districts, or any part thereof, contiguous there to, or any specified area or areas as the case may be, 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 aforesaid or from the specified area or areas, as the case may be .
59. Hearing to be given before order under Sections 55, 56, 57 or 57A :
(1) Before an order under Section 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 authorised by the officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 20 given 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 or 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 examination the witness produced by his.
(2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of the person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Section 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."
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 21
20) The provisions of sections 56, 58 and 59 of the Act are part of Chapter V of the Act. The title of this chapter is as under :-
"Special Measures for Maintenance of Public order and Safety of State"
The title of section 56 of the Act is as under :-
"56. Removal of persons about to commit offence".
21) The externment puts restraint/restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights as mentioned in Articles 19 (d)(e) of Constitution of India. Such order involves restraint/restriction on enjoyment of life also and the procedure is required to be given to see that the principles of natural justice are followed as per Article 21 of Constitution of India. As such order restraints or put restrictions on fundamental rights, the procedure if that is valid, needs to be strictly followed.
22) When there is law made for externment, every aspect of law including the title of the Chapter in which the provision can be found and also the title of the provision itself need to be given due importance for interpretation of the provision and for ascertaining the object behind the provision. The validity of such law depends on the object behind the law and so, ordinarily the Court is expected to ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 22 go with the presumption that the provision is in accordance with the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution of India and they need to be interpreted that way, in consonance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by aforesaid Articles of Constitution. If the order, determination made by the officer is contrary to the Constitutional mandate mentioned in aforesaid Articles, then such order cannot sustain in law. (Reliance placed on the case reported as AIR 1974 SC 1471 [Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Vs. State of Gujarat].
23) Section 56 (1)(a) can be divided in to following parts :-
(i) Movements or acts (of any person) need to be considered and so many acts of such person need to be available for consideration.
and
(ii) Such acts need to have caused or they are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property.
Thus, even if there is suspicion to cause harm as mentioned in this provision, externment order can be made.
24) Section 56 (1)(b) can be divided as under :-
(i) There must be reasonable ground for believing, the ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 23 belief of the officer must be based on some material in existence.
(ii) The material needs to be shown to the person, the proposed externee that he is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapte XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) When in the opinion of the officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person, the proposed externee, by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.
This provision shows that the existence of material only is not sufficient, but in addition to that there needs to be formation of opinion with regard to the witnesses of the matter as mentioned in the provision. The suspicion is that he is about to be engaged needs to be based on some material and so what kind of offence he intends to commit, he is likely to commit, needs to be spelt out by the officer, both in show cause notice and in order of externment.
25) From the title of Chapter V of the Act in which section 56 ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 24 is there which is already quoted, it is necessary to infer that the activity of proposed externee should be such that it has already caused harm or his activities have likely to cause harm to public order (underline added).
26) The definition of 'public order' is not given in the Act. The provision is preventive measure. In Maharashtra, there is the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1981' for short). In this special legislation, giving another preventive measure, meaning of 'public order' and meaning of 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' are given. As the object behind both the Acts is similar, preventive measure, the meaning of aforesaid two terms given in the aforesaid legislation made for preventive detention can be used for the present purpose. The meaning of these two terms are there in section 2(a) and explanation to section 2(a) of the Act of 1981 and they are as under :-
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
(a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 25 maintenance of public order" means-
(i) in the case of a slumlord, when he is
engaged, or is making preparations of
engaging, in any of his activities as a
slumlord, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;
(ii) in the case of a bootlegger, when he is
engaged, or is making preparations for
engaging, in any of his activities as a
bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;
(iii) in the case of a drug-offender, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a drug-
offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;
(iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order." Explanation given to sub-section (a) of section 2 is applicable to all the definitions given in this section. The explanation is as under :-
"Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause (a), ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 26 public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof, (underline added) or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health or disturbance in public safety and tranquility or disturbs the day to day life of the community by black-marketing in the essential commodities which is resulting in the artificial scarcity in the supply of such commodities and rises in the prices of essential commodities which ultimately causes inflation or disturbs the life of the community by producing and distributing pirated copies of music or film products thereby resulting in a loss of confidence in administration;"
27) The meaning of the aforesaid two terms show that the legislature did not expect the order of externment against the person who has dispute with one or two persons or who is having dispute of private nature. This is the main thing which needs to be kept in mind by concerned police while making proposal for externment and also the officer passing the externment order.
28) In view of the aforesaid object behind the provision of ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 27 section 56 of the Act, the words of expressions used in section 56(1)
(a) and (b) like alarm, danger or harm to person or property needs to be read as they are referring to public at large and not to one or two individuals known to the proposed externee (Reliance placed on the observations made in the case reported as AIR 1969 BOMBAY 351 (V 56 C 57) [Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and Anr.]
29) When there is some dispute due to which some crime is committed, motive always plays important part. When the dispute is of private nature, ordinarily maintenance of public order is not involved. In such cases, there are other provisions like chapter case proceedings given in Criminal Procedure Code for taking preventive action. In those cases, it is never desirable to use the provisions of externment as it involves restraint to much extent on the enjoyment of fundamental rights quoted already. It always needs to be kept in mind by officer, making order or even by the Court that externee is virtually cut from the roots by taking him away from the family and the people with whom he was living at a particular place. When the roots of the man are cut, he is more likely to commit offences as there is less possibility of his identification in other area. On the other hand, a person, who is involved in private dispute, but who is living with his family is less likely to commit similar offence as his ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 28 entire family suffers due to prosecution and such orders. Thus, the order of externment in one way acts against the policy of reformation. In the present matter, it is already mentioned that there was no material available for passing externment order. Even if it is presumed that the aforesaid circumstances like acquittal were not there, it was not possible to pass externment order in view of nature of object behind the externment.
30) The aforesaid discussion shows that both the police and the officer empowered to pass externment order need to act very cautiously in such matters. From the law developed already on this point and the discussion made above, some requirements for externment order and the effects of not complying the requirements can be given and they are as under :-
(i) There should be material to justify the application of section 56 of the Act even at the time of issuance of show cause notice.
(ii) Before issuing show cause notice, the officer empowered in that regard needs to consider the material made available by police to ascertain as to whether the material is sufficient for prima facie satisfaction. He should also get satisfied that the material is really in existence and the officer is not expected to act on the ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 29 word, report of the police officer. That degree of satisfaction needs to appear in show cause notice. In other words, the opinion of the officer as mentioned in section 56 of the Act needs to be on the basis of material. Both show cause notice and the final order need to show that this way, there was application of mind.
(iii) If there is error in show cause notice like absence of material, but such material is mentioned in show cause notice, that circumstance will be sufficient to set aside the order of externment. Similarly, if the material could not have been considered under section 56 of the Act, the externment order cannot sustain in law.
Absence of material even at the time of issuance of notice, but mentioning some material affects the right of hearing of proposed externee as ordinarily he does not get sufficient time to collect the material of aforesaid nature to refute the allegations made in show cause notice. Similarly, absence of material or mentioning the material which could not have been used for such proceeding in show cause notice creates a probability of malice.
(iv) The material allegations and general nature of such ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 30 allegations need to be informed in show cause notice. Only specific particulars which will fix the identity of witnesses, who are unwilling to depose in public against proposed externee are not to be made available to the proposed externee. All other particulars which can be used by proposed externee to show that the degree of satisfaction cannot be attended by the officer concerned need to be given to the proposed externee. The proposed externee has right to know all such other material as that right is a part of principles of natural justice and order involves the aforesaid fundamental rights of proposed externee.
(v) If the order of externment is proposed on the grounds mentioned in section 56(1)(a) of the Act, there need to be many acts of proposed externee available for consideration and these acts must have already caused or there must be probability of causing alarm, danger etc. to person or property in future from the proposed externee. Such activity must be in respect of public order.
(vi) If the proposed externment is on the ground given in section 56(1)(b), both the conditions like proposed externee was engaged or was about to engage in ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 31 commission of offence as mentioned in this ground and further formation of the opinion by the officer that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against such person as mentioned in this ground need to be satisfied and fulfillment of only one condition is not sufficient. There should be subjective satisfaction on both the requirements and further, the offences need to have relation with public order.
(vii) There should be material for forming opinion at the time of issuing show cause notice that externment order needs to be made in respect of a particular area, may be entire district or part of district and area contiguous to particular district or part of district and that needs to be reflected in show cause notice. Only reason that the particular area is contiguous area will not be sufficient to cover that contiguous area in externment order. Possibility of activity in that area on the basis of material needs to be made out for subjective satisfaction.
(viii) On the basis of nature of material available, the hearing as mentioned in section 59 of the Act needs to be given to proposed externee and in respect of those allegations opportunity needs to be given to the proposed externee to refute the allegations. ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 ::: Cri.W.P.No.699/2019 32
(ix) In the externment order, there may not be detail reasons, but mentioning of the material on the basis of which the order is made needs to be there.
31) The material from the present matter is already discussed. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the tests/ requirements given above are not satisfied in the present matter. Basically, the matter did not involve 'public order'. Further, most of the material was actually not available. There was non application of mind at the time of issuance of show cause notice and at the time of passing of order. Inference is easy of existence of malice in the present matter. This Court holds that such order cannot sustain in law. In the result, following order :-
O R D E R I. The petition is allowed.
II. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause 'C'.
III. Application for intervention is disposed of.
IV. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
[ K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:08:47 :::