Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a reference made by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Coram: Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) which did not agree with the view of another Division Bench in Suraj Balbhim Shelke v. State of Maharashtra. The reference was to decide two issues: (1) whether the power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial in nature; and (2) whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing of an appeal under Section 60. The Larger Bench, consisting of S.S. Shinde, Prakash D. Naik, and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ., held that the power under Section 60 is quasi-judicial because it involves adjudication of rights and affects the liberty of the externed person. Consequently, the appellate authority must pass a speaking order giving reasons for its decision. The Court overruled the contrary view in Suraj Balbhim Shelke and answered both questions in the affirmative. The judgment emphasizes that natural justice requires reasoned decisions, especially when the order impacts personal liberty.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Quasi-Judicial Power - Section 60 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Nature of Power - The power exercised by the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial in nature as it involves adjudication of rights and affects the liberty of the externed person. The authority must act judicially and not merely administratively. (Paras 1-31)
B) Administrative Law - Duty to Give Reasons - Section 60 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Speaking Order - The appellate authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is duty-bound to give reasons while disposing of the appeal. A non-speaking order violates principles of natural justice and renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 1-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial in nature; and whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Section 60 of the Act of 1951.
Final Decision
The Larger Bench answered both questions in the affirmative: (i) the power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial in nature; and (ii) there is a duty to give reasons while disposing of the appeal under Section 60. The contrary view in Suraj Balbhim Shelke was overruled.
Law Points
- Quasi-judicial power
- duty to give reasons
- Section 60 Maharashtra Police Act 1951
- appellate authority
- speaking order
- natural justice
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 74
Criminal Writ Petition No.1578 of 2021
S.S. Shinde, Prakash D. Naik, Sarang V. Kotwal
Mr. Prashant Aher, Advocate i/b. Prashant Gavai, for the Petitioner; Mr. G.S. Godbole, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae; Smt. A.S. Pai, Public Prosecutor a/w. K.V. Saste, APP, for the State
The State of Maharashtra & The Dy. Commissioner of Police, K-Zone, Nashik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, with a reference to a Larger Bench on the nature of power under Section 60 and the requirement to give reasons.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the externment order and the appellate order under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Filing Reason
The Division Bench hearing the petition disagreed with the earlier view in Suraj Balbhim Shelke and referred the questions to a Larger Bench.
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench (Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) referred the matter to a Larger Bench as they did not agree with the view in Suraj Balbhim Shelke (2016(4) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 273).
Issues
Whether the power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial in nature.
Whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing of the appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the power under Section 60 is quasi-judicial and requires a speaking order.
The State submitted that the power is administrative and reasons are not mandatory.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quasi-judicial because it involves adjudication of rights and affects personal liberty. Therefore, the appellate authority must pass a speaking order giving reasons for its decision, as required by principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the power under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature; and Whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Section 60 of the Act of 1951.
The Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) who heard this Writ Petition did not agree with the view of another Division Bench (Coram: R.M. Borde & A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.) expressed in the case of Suraj Balbhim Shelke Vs. State of Maharashtra & others.
Procedural History
The Criminal Writ Petition No.1578 of 2021 was filed by Mayur Vasant Sonawane challenging an externment order. The Division Bench (Nitin Jamdar & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) referred the matter to a Larger Bench on 17.12.2021 to decide two issues regarding the nature of power under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the requirement to give reasons. The Larger Bench heard the matter and pronounced judgment on 21.04.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: Section 60
