Bombay High Court
Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar S/O ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Divisional ... on 1 March, 2023
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
1 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 756 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar S/o
Gurucharansingh Lohiya,
Aged 34 years, Occu. Pvt. work,
R/o Vaishali Nagar, Near Binaki
Power House, Nagpur
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2] Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-3, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. K. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Dubey, A.P.P. for the respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : MARCH 01, 2023
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 :::
2 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his externment dated 11.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Nagpur City, Nagpur as well as the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by respondent No.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, whereby the respondent No.1 confirmed the order of externment in appeal.
4. The respondent No.2, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-section (1), clauses (a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951" for short), ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Nagpur District for a period of two years. In order to arrive at subjective satisfaction to warrant the order of externment against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 relied upon seven crimes registered against the petitioner at Panchpaoli police station, Nagpur. The details of the crimes are as under :
Sr. Police Crime No. Date Sections Case status
No. Station
1. Panchpaoli 3070/2018 30.03.2018 142 of Mah. Police Pending in Court
Act
2. Panchpaoli 139/2018 20.06.2018 399, 402 of IPC, Pending in Court
4/25 of Arms Act
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 :::
3 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt
r/w. 135, 142 of
Mah. Police Act
3. Panchpaoli 42/2019 16.01.2019 399, 402 of IPC, r/w Pending in Court
3/25, 4/25 of Arms
Act, r/w. 135 of
Mah. Police Act
4. Panchpaoli 353/2021 05.06.2021 65(e) Prohibition Pending in Court
Act
5. Panchpaoli 521/2021 21.07.2021 65(e) Prohibition Under police
Act investigation
6. Panchpaoli 610/2021 07.08.2021 65(e) Prohibition Pending in Court
Act
7. Panchpaoli 632/2021 08.08.2021 65(e) Prohibition Pending in Court
Act
PREVENTIVE ACTIONS
Sr. Police Station Crime No. Section Result
No.
1. Panchpaoli 66/2020 110 of Cr.P.C On 09/12/2020 ,
the bond of
Rs.20,000/- has
been taken as
final bond for
two years.
5. Besides above crimes, the respondent No.2 placed heavy reliance upon the confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. On the basis of the crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent No.2 recorded a satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 4 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Act of 1951 and as such warranting his externment.
6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of his externment dated 11.04.2022 before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. His appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.
7. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that out of the seven crimes relied upon to form the subjective satisfaction four crimes are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Prohibition Act" for short). One crime is under the Act of 1951. Learned Advocate submitted that the crimes at Sr. Nos.2 and 3 are the only crimes registered under the Indian ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 5 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt Penal Code. Learned Advocate submitted that the first crime registered under the Indian Penal Code was on 20.06.2018 and the second crime was registered on 16.01.2019. Learned Advocate submitted that the offences registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act and under the Act of 1951 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of passing an externment order. Learned Advocate further submitted that the proceeding for externment was initiated by issuing notice dated 25.11.2021 by Assistant Police Commissioner, Lakadganj Division, Nagpur City. Learned Advocate further pointed out that the notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 08.01.2022 was issued after about three years from the date of the registration of the last crime under the Indian Penal Code in the year 2019. Learned Advocate therefore, submitted that the crimes under the Indian Penal Code relied upon were stale crimes. The live link between those crimes and the externment proceeding was completely snapped. Learned Advocate further submitted that the contents of the notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 08.01.2022 are cryptic and therefore, on the basis of the same the action of externment has to be held as malafide. As far as the statements of the ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 6 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt confidential witnesses are concerned, it is submitted that the same were not referred in the notice dated 08.01.2022 issued by respondent No.2. Learned Advocate further submitted that as per the chapter proceeding initiated against the petitioner, under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'), he had executed the bond for good behaviour on 09.12.2020 for a period of two years. Learned Advocate submitted that after this bond, not a single crime under the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. Learned Advocate submitted that the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 have not taken this fact into consideration. Learned Advocate further submitted that the statements of the confidential witnesses were not duly verified by the respondent No.2. Learned Advocate further submitted that the respondent No.2 without assigning any reason ordered the externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from the entire Nagpur district. Learned Advocate submitted that on this count, the order suffers from virus of excessiveness.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 7 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt submitted that after execution of bond in a chapter proceeding under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C., crimes under the Prohibition Act were committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this would constitute the breach of the bond and as such, a valid ground to substantiate the subjective satisfaction recorded by the respondent No.2. Learned APP further submitted that the continuous indulgence in the commission of serious crimes till the issuance of a show cause notice weighed with the respondent No. 2 to record the satisfaction that the movements and acts likely to cause danger or harm to the person or property. Learned APP on the basis of the statements of the confidential witnesses submitted that the same are sufficient to form an opinion that the people from locality are not willing to come forward to give a statement against the petitioner by reason of apprehension in their mind with regard to the safety of their person or property. Learned APP submitted that even if it is assumed that the crimes registered under the Prohibition Act and the Act of 1951 cannot be considered, the two crimes registered against the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code were serious in nature and therefore, sufficient for his externment. Learned APP further submitted that the statements of the ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 8 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt confidential witnesses were duly verified. Learned APP further submitted that the respondent No.1-an appellate authority has examined the entire record in the appeal and found that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the respondent No. 2 was based on the objective material.
10. In order to appreciate and deal with the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. In this case, relying upon the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951, the externment order is passed. Section 56 reads thus :
" 56. Removal of person 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 or areas to which the State Government may, by 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, (bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 9 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or other wise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [ or such prejudicial act] or the outbreak or spread of such disease or [notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Officer or not and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the said area or areas specified (hereinafter referred to as "the specified area or areas") from which he was directed to remove himself].
(2) An Officer directing any person under sub-section (1) to remove himself from any specified area or areas in the State may further direct such person that during the period the order made against him is in force, as and when he resides in any other areas in the State, he shall report his place of residence to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station once in every month, even if there be no chance in his address. The said officer may also direct that, during the said period, as and when he goes away from the State, he shall, within ten days from the date of his departure from the State send a report in writing to the said officer, either by post or otherwise, of the date of his departure, and as and when he comes back to the State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to the officer in-charge of the police station nearest to the place where he may be staying."
11. In this case, the provisions of Section 56(1) clauses (a) and
(b) have been invoked. The ground under clause (a) indicates that ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 10 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt movements or acts of any person must be causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. The ground under clause
(b) indicates that to invoke the same, there must be reasonable ground for believing that the person sought to be externed is engaged or about to engage in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI, XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of any such offence. The second part of clause
(b), which has to be read with the first part, clearly stipulates that the Competent Authority empowered to pass an order should form an opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person only because of an apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property. The conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) would indicate that in arriving at a subjective satisfaction as to the grounds, there must be objective material on record before the authority.
12. Before proceeding to the merits of the arguments, at this stage, it would be necessary to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre .v/s. ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 :::
11 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt The State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the decision in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar .vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra2. On consideration of this decision, it is held that the reasons which necessitate or justify passing of an extraordinary order of externment arise out of extraordinary circumstances. It is held that therefore, the strict compliance of Section 59 of the Act of 1951 is required to be made. It is further held that the order of externment deprive the citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. The order of externment in fact prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during subsistence of the externment order. It is, therefore, held that the subjective satisfaction must be arrived at on the basis of the objective material.
13. It would be necessary to go through the relevant record to examine the correctness of the orders impugned in this petition. It is undisputed that the crimes at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were registered 1 2022 ALL MR (Cri.) 761 (S.C.) 2 (1973) 1 SCC 372 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 12 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt under the Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act. The crime at Sr. No.1 was registered under Section 142 of the Act of 1951. It is settled legal position that such crimes cannot be taken into consideration to justify the externment order. In this connection, useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of Vijay @ Tyson S/o. Namdeorao Dongre .v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others 3. In this case, it is held that the crime registered under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for selling, buying and possessing intoxicant could not be said to be prejudicial to the public peace, tranquility and as such, cannot be made the foundation for externment. It is to be noted that in view of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951, the offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the Act of 1951 could not be said to be an acts as contemplated or understood by the Clause
(a) and (b) of Section 56 (1) of the Act of 1951. Therefore, while deciding the fate of the impugned order, out of the seven crimes these five crimes ought to have been excluded while forming the subjective satisfaction by the respondent No.2. Perusal of the externment order would show that those crimes were registered in the year 2021. The last crime was registered on 08.08.2021. Perusal of the externment 3 2017 ALL MR (Cri.) 5254 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:37 ::: 13 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt order would show that for the purpose of recording subjective satisfaction for the purpose of passing externment order these five crimes were relied upon as an objective material. It is seen that on the basis of these five crimes the live link between those crimes and the externment proceeding was sought to be established. In my view, the approach of the respondent No.2 was totally against the spirit of Section 56 of the Act of 1951. In my view, this is important aspect to conclude that the subjective satisfaction was dented.
14. The two crimes under the Indian Penal Code are at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3. The first crime was registered on 20.06.2018 and the second crime was registered on 16.01.2019. The first notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in November 2021. It is seen that there was time gap of three years between the last crime registered on 16.01.2019 and the said notice. It is to be noted that in order to justify the live link, the serious nature of the crime has been made the bone of contention. In my view, the serious nature of the stale crime cannot be made the foundation to establish the live link. The object of this proceeding is to prevent a person from indulging in such offences ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 14 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt repetitively in future, so that peace and tranquility in the society is maintained. The order of externment was passed on 11.04.2022. Perusal of the order would show that no justifiable reason has been stated in the order on this count. It is, therefore, seen that there was no live link between the crimes at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 relied upon to justify the proceeding and the actual order dated 11.04.2022. In my view, this is very important aspect. This aspect would largely reflect upon the subjective satisfaction asserted in this proceeding by the respondents. In my view, this basic lacunae is sufficient to set aside the order of externment.
15. Another example of non-application of mind can be seen on perusal of the externment proceeding. Respondent No.2, being competent authority, was supposed to issue a notice with all the details and particulars including the material relied upon to proceed further in the externment proceeding. The object of the notice is to offer an opportunity to concerned person to satisfy the authority that the acts alleged against him and the material relied, in support of the same, do not justify the invocation of the provision of Section 56 of the Act of ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 15 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt 1951. The notice issued by the respondent No. 2 before passing the order is dated 08.01.2022. Perusal of this notice would show that it is as vague as vagueness could be. The crime chart has not been mentioned in this notice. Similarly, there is no mention of the statements of the confidential witnesses. Similarly, there is no reproduction of the substance of the statements of the confidential witnesses. There is also no statement with regard to the satisfaction on the basis of the material to proceed against the petitioner. It is seen that the respondent No.2 seems to have formed an opinion that the earlier notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 25.11.2021 would serve his purpose. In my view, this assumption was contrary to the law. Respondent No.2 had delegated powers to Assistant Commissioner of Police for the purpose of conducting the inquiry. The Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted the enquiry and submitted the papers of enquiry to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 on the basis of the record and proceeding of the enquiry and particularly the result of enquiry was supposed to personally apply his mind to the said material and arrive at his satisfaction before issuing the notice. Respondent No.2 was under ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 :::
16 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt legal obligation to give a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner so as to offer him an opportunity to deal with each and every aspect effectively and meaningfully. This notice, in my view, was vague and cryptic. This notice, in my view, could not be said to be a show cause notice. Even if it is assumed that this notice was received by the petitioner, same had not offered a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deal with the same effectively and meaningfully. In my view, on this count, this proceeding cannot be sustained.
16. It is further seen on perusal of the order that the substance of the statements of confidential witnesses was not set out in the order.
The petitioner had no access to those statements. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondent No.2 to reproduce briefly the substance of those statements. Failure on the part of the respondent No.2 to mention the substance of the statements of the witnesses in the order has denied him an opportunity to raise his appropriate defence in proceeding. It is further seen on perusal of the statements that those statements were not personally verified by the respondent No.2. It is to be noted that those statements were recorded by the Senior Police ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 17 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt Inspector, Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur on 02.11.2021. The endorsement on the back side of the statements would indicate that those statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 27.11.2021. It is seen that Assistant Commissioner of Police did not summon the confidential witnesses personally for verification of the matter recorded in their statements. Further perusal of the statements would show that respondent Nos. 2 and Assistant Commissioner of Police have not put dates below their signatures. In my view, this is very important aspect. It is seen on perusal of the verification recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the matter was written by somebody else. He simply signed below the said matter in a different ink. In my view, therefore, no explicit reliance could be placed on these statements to maintain the order of externment.
17. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the preventive action initiated under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. has been relied upon to justify the order. The said proceeding was initiated in the year 2020. The bond was executed on 09.12.2020 for a period of two years. The amount of bond was Rs.20,000/-. It is not the case of ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 18 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt the respondent No.2 that despite furnishing the bond, on 09.12.2020, the petitioner has committed any act or an offence as contemplated under Section 56(1) (a) & (b) of the Act of 1951. During the course of the externment proceeding there was no grievance that the petitioner had committed breach of terms and conditions of the bond for good behaviour furnished by him. It is to be noted that on the date of the show cause notice dated 08.01.2022 and the order of externment dated 11.04.2022 the bond period was not over. In view of this factual position, the respondent No. 2 was required to consider this objective material to arrive at subjective satisfaction. No crime was committed by the petitioner after execution of bond under the Indian Penal Code. In my view, while arriving at subjective satisfaction, good behavior of petitioner consistent with the said bond ought to have been taken into consideration. Such a failure on the part of the respondent No.2, in my view, would certainly cause a dent to subjective satisfaction.
18. It is to be noted that considering the serious apprehension placed on record on the basis of the material, one can say that the acts of the petitioner were found to be of the nature and kind stipulated ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 19 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951. In my view, in this backdrop, respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to have invoked the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its application to the State of Maharashtra. Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the arrest of a person can be made to prevent a person from committing cognizable offence. If a police officer apprehends a design of a person to commit any cognizable offence, the police officer can arrest him without order from the Magistrate. It further provides that if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented, the said person can be detained in custody for a total period of thirty days form the date of arrest of such person as per the order of the Magistrate. In this case, considering the apprehension sought to be placed on record and invocation of Section 56(1) Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951, the respondent No.2 ought to have taken recourse to this remedy. If he had taken recourse to this remedy, then he would have been justified in passing the order on the basis of the said material. It is to be noted that the remedy provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. is a speedy remedy. The police officer is required to form an opinion that the person is likely to ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 20 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt commit a cognizable offence and that said person cannot be prevented from committing the said offence unless and until he is arrested and detained, as provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, who is an independent authority, would definitely make objective analysis of the material on record before granting the prayer for detention of the concerned person. It is to be noted that after taking recourse to the remedy provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of the detention period, if the said person comes out and commits an offence then, in my view, it would be a strong circumstance justifying his externment.
19. As per the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951, the maximum period of externment is two years. In this case, the respondent No.2 has ordered externment of the petitioner from the entire Nagpur District for a period of two years. It is to be noted that the externment order apart from making inroad on the fundamental right of the movement makes the said person live separate from his family. Similarly, the said order can deprive the said person of his livelihood. In order to justify the externment for maximum period of ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 21 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt two years, the authority is required to consider the objective material to record the subjective satisfaction on this point. The order passed by the respondent No.2 is silent on this point. No reasons have been recorded by the respondent No.2 to warrant externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from entire Nagpur district. It is seen on perusal of the notice and order that all the crimes committed by the petitioner were within the jurisdiction of Panchpaoli Police Station in Nagpur City. In view of this fact, the respondent No.2 was expected to record the reasons to warrant externment of the petitioner outside Nagpur district. The order passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the respondent No.1, therefore, suffers from virus of excessiveness. The law laid down on the point in the cases of Shaikh Mukhtyar S/o Mustafa Shaikh .vs. State of Maharashtra and others 4 and Bhagwat Dadasaheb Landge and another .vs. State of Maharashtra and others 5, would equally apply in this case. In my view, this would be one of the factors, which would weigh in favour of the petitioner. This would also reflect upon non-application of mind to the material on record to arrive at 4 2017 ALL MR (Cri.) 268 5 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. (cri.) 546 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 ::: 22 11.CRIWP.756.22 judge.odt subjective satisfaction. In my view, therefore, the externment order passed by the respondent No.2 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order, cannot be sustained. The orders deserve to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 11.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 externing the petitioner from Nagpur district for a period of two years and the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 confirming the said order of externment, are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The petition stands disposed of.
( G. A. SANAP, J. ) Namrata ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 06:12:38 :::