Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Sudam Adhikari, was served with a notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Palghar, in November 2019. The petitioner appeared, filed a reply, and examined witnesses in his support. After considering the submissions, the SDM concluded that there was no threat or alarm caused by the petitioner and recommended that the proceedings be dropped. On 18th September 2020, the SDM communicated this recommendation to the Divisional Commissioner (Respondent No. 2). However, the Divisional Commissioner, without considering the SDM's recommendation, issued a fresh show cause notice on the same set of allegations and eventually passed an externment order dated 26th March 2021. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 29th June 2021. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging both orders. The High Court observed that the SDM, after a thorough inquiry, had recommended dropping of proceedings, and the Divisional Commissioner was bound to consider that recommendation. By ignoring it and issuing a fresh notice, the Commissioner acted in violation of the statutory scheme under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court held that the externment order and the appellate order were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The petition was allowed, and both orders were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 59 of Maharashtra Police Act - Procedural Compliance - The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after hearing the petitioner, recommended dropping of proceedings. However, the Divisional Commissioner, without considering that recommendation, issued a fresh show cause notice and passed an externment order. The High Court held that the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was binding and the Commissioner's failure to consider it vitiated the proceedings. The externment order and the appellate order were quashed. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 59 of Maharashtra Police Act - Binding Nature of Recommendation - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after conducting an inquiry, recommended that the externment proceedings against the petitioner be dropped. The Divisional Commissioner, ignoring this recommendation, issued a fresh show cause notice and passed an externment order. The High Court held that the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was binding on the Divisional Commissioner, and the failure to consider it rendered the subsequent proceedings invalid. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act is valid when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recommended dropping of proceedings and the Commissioner issued a fresh show cause notice without considering that recommendation
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 26/3/2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 29/6/2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment proceedings under Maharashtra Police Act must follow statutory procedure
- recommendation of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is binding on Divisional Commissioner
- failure to consider recommendation vitiates externment order
