Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This petition has been filed under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of an order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, by the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and confirmed in appeal by the State of Maharashtra.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Pandharpur where he owns a cycle shop and considerable immovable properties. He also owns agricultural lands in an adjoining village. He is a married man with wife and children.

3. On or about 15th June 1967 the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pandharpur, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. It was alleged in the notice that because of the petitioner's illegal acts an atmosphere of danger and alarm had been created in Pandharpur city and the surrounding area. Instances of nine illegal acts of the petitioner were given in paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (I) of the notice. It was also alleged in the notice that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner because of danger to their life and property. In response of the notice the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, filed a written statement and led evidence of some witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer then made a report to the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur Division, recommending the externment of the petitioner. The Divisional Magistrate heard the petitioner again and entertained further evidence given by him. On 17th February 1968 he passed him impugned order externing the petitioner from the revenue limits of the Sholapur district and adjoining districts of Poona and Satara for a period of two years from the date of the receipt of the order. The order was made under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act. The reasons in support of the order were given in detail in a Note which was made by the Divisional Magistrate on the findings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The reasons given in the Note were referred to and summarised in the impugned order of the Divisional Magistrate.

"2 (h): On 5-6-1967 you have slapped the Editor of 'Gophan' at Pandharpur for having published the news about the case against you for having murdered Vinabai. For that purpose a non-cognisable offence has been registered under S. 323 in Pandharpur Police Station No. 59 of 1967."
"2 (I): You have threatened and beaten the father of a witness on 6-6-1967 for having given evidence in the murder case against you. In that matter, an offence under Section 223-504 has been registered in Pandharpur Police Station No. 57 of 1967."

9. There is a third gound why the impugned order requires to be set aside. Supposing that the two grounds mentioned in cls. 2 (h) and 2 (i) of the notice permit the externment of the petitioner, it is difficult to understand why the Divisional Magistrate extended the order to the three revenue districts of Sholapur, Poona and Satara. Section 56 authorises the externment of a person outside the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the authority making the order as "such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto." These words, however, cannot be so interpreted as to enable the authority to extend the area of externment without reference to the purpose of the externment. In a sense, the whole State of Maharashtra is contiguous to any area within that State. If the authority concerned is not to have an arbitrary and unguided discretion in deciding the area of externment it must follow that the area must be so chosen as to meet the situation created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed. Such an interpretation is also necessary in order that Section 56 may be in conformity with Art. 19(5) of the Constitution referred to above. The restriction placed by Section 56 on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction, unless the area of externment is restricted to the requirement created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed. The allegation contained in the notice in the present case was that the illegal acts of the petitioner had led to an atmosphere of danger and alarm "in Pandharpur city and the surrounding area." The two illegal acts on which the Divisional Magistrate relied were confined to Pandharpur city. No reasons have been given or suggested by the Divisional Magistrate for extending the area, not only outside the Pandharpur taluka, but to the district of Sholapur, and the districts of Poona and Satara as well.