Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Govinda Dashrath Sonawane and Mithun Dashrath Sonawane, both social workers, challenged the externment orders passed against them under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Superintendent of Police, Dhule, passed an order dated 27.05.2021 externing them from the area of Dhule district for a period of two years. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, dismissed their appeals on 12.08.2021. The petitioners contended that the show-cause notice did not specify any particular incident or activity, and the externment order was passed without application of mind. The court examined the show-cause notice and found that it merely stated that the petitioners were involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, without giving any specific instances. The court held that such vague notice does not enable the person to effectively reply. Further, the externment order did not record satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward due to fear, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 56(1)(b). The appellate authority's order merely reproduced the externment order without any independent analysis, indicating non-application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed both the externment orders and the appellate orders, allowing the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Show-cause notice must contain specific instances of prejudicial activities to enable effective reply - The court held that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioners did not specify any particular incident or activity, rendering the notice vague and the consequent externment order unsustainable (Paras 5-6). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Appellate authority must apply independent mind and not merely endorse the externment order - The court observed that the Divisional Commissioner's order merely reproduced the externment order without any independent analysis, indicating non-application of mind (Para 7). C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Requirement of satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward - The court noted that the externment order did not record any satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to depose due to fear, which is a prerequisite for externment (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioners are sustainable in law when the show-cause notice and the order lack specific instances of prejudicial activities and the appellate authority failed to apply independent mind.
Final Decision
The court allowed both writ petitions, quashing the externment orders dated 27.05.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhule and the appellate orders dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific instances of prejudicial activities
- not vague allegations
- Show-cause notice must contain material particulars to enable effective reply
- Appellate authority must apply independent mind and not merely endorse the externment order
- Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward due to fear
- Non-application of mind vitiates the externment order.
