Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Aabarao Raje, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an externment order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanded (respondent no.2) and the appellate order dated 19th January, 2010 passed by the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.1). The petitioner was externed from three districts: Nanded, Latur, and Parbhani for a period of two years under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner contended that a notice under Section 56-B of the Act was served on him on 23rd June, 2009, alleging that the Incharge Officer of Kandhar Police Station had submitted a proposal for his externment. In response, the petitioner filed a reply stating that he was a graduate and agriculturist, that the proceedings were initiated due to political rivalry, and that he had assisted police personnel during the Ganesh festival and received an appreciation certificate. Despite this, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the externment order without considering his explanation. The petitioner appealed to the State of Maharashtra, but the appeal was dismissed without proper consideration. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the petitioner's explanation. The court also noted that the appellate authority failed to consider the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition. The court held that the orders were unsustainable in law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an externment order against the petitioner without properly considering his explanation that the proceedings were initiated due to political rivalry and that he had assisted police. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal without proper application of mind. Held that the orders are unsustainable and quashed. (Paras 4-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Consideration of Explanation - The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice pointing out that he is a graduate agriculturist and that the proceedings were due to political rivalry, and also produced an appreciation certificate for assisting police. The externment authority did not consider these aspects. Held that failure to consider the explanation vitiates the order. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 60 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Appellate Order - The appellate authority dismissed the appeal without giving reasons and without considering the merits. Held that the appellate order is also unsustainable. (Paras 6, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanded and the appellate order dated 19th January, 2010 passed by the State of Maharashtra are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 19th January, 2010 passed by respondent no.1 and the order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by respondent no.2. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority
- consideration of explanation
- and material on record
- Section 56 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires proper application of mind
- Appeal under Section 60 of the Act must be decided on merits.
