Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar, challenged an externment order dated 5th April 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati Zone-1, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 28th September 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, confirming the externment. The externment order directed the petitioner to be externed from Amravati City and District. The respondent authorities relied on five criminal cases registered against the petitioner between 2010 and 2017, all pending trial, to form their subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to commit offences and that witnesses were afraid to depose. The petitioner argued that the cases were old, no conviction had occurred, and there was no material to show that witnesses were unwilling to come forward. The court examined the record and found that the externment order was based solely on the registration of cases without any independent material indicating that the petitioner's presence was harmful to public order or that witnesses were intimidated. The court noted that the cases were from 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2017, and there was no recent criminal activity. The appellate authority's order was also cryptic and did not demonstrate independent application of mind. The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority was not based on proper material and that the orders were unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must be based on material showing that the person is likely to commit offences and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward. Mere registration of cases, especially old ones, without evidence of continuing criminal activity or witness intimidation, does not justify externment. Held that the order was passed without application of mind and is unsustainable (Paras 5-8). B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Appellate Authority - Duty to Apply Mind - The appellate authority must independently consider the material and give reasons for confirming the externment order. A cryptic order without proper application of mind is liable to be set aside. Held that the appellate order suffered from non-application of mind (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the appellate order confirming it are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 5th April 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, and the appellate order dated 28th September 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction based on material showing that the person is likely to commit offences
- mere registration of cases without conviction or proximity in time is insufficient
- appellate authority must independently apply mind.
