Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Masiullah Mohid Idrishi, challenged an externment order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Mumbai, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which externed him from Greater Mumbai and Thane District. The order was based on a show cause notice dated 19.8.2009, which the petitioner denied. The petitioner had a history of five criminal cases (under Sections 323, 324, 326, 394, 427 IPC) and two Chapter Cases under Sections 107 and 110(e)(g) of the Bombay Police Act. Additionally, three recent cases were registered: Crime No.4/2009 under the Essential Commodities Act for theft of furnace oil, Crime No.67/2009 under Section 379 IPC for theft of iron bars, and Crime No.275/2009 under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act for possession of stolen property. Two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were recorded. The petitioner's appeal to the Government was dismissed. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that while it mentioned the criminal cases and in-camera statements, there was no material to show that the petitioner's activities caused alarm or danger in the area. The court noted that the in-camera statements did not indicate any such alarm or danger, and the order was passed mechanically. The court held that the externment order was not sustainable and quashed it, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Requirement of Alarm or Danger - The externment order must be based on material showing that the person's activities cause alarm or danger in the area; mere pendency of criminal cases and in-camera statements without specific evidence of alarm or danger is insufficient - Held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and is liable to be quashed (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act was valid based on the material available, particularly the in-camera statements and criminal cases
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the externment order dated 27.11.2009, and set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the Government. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Bombay Police Act requires material to show that the person's activities cause alarm or danger in the area
- mere pendency of criminal cases and in-camera statements without specific evidence of alarm or danger is insufficient
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 81
Criminal Writ Petition No. 760 of 2010
Mr. Rakesh Kumar a/w Mr. Sunil Sharma and Ms. Soni Kumari i/b. Sunil Kumar for petitioner; Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for respondent-State
Mr. Masiullah Mohid Idrishi
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Bhoivada Division, Mumbai; The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Matunga Office, Mumbai; The Principal Secretary, Home Minister, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 27.11.2009 and the dismissal of appeal by the Government
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from Greater Mumbai and Thane District based on criminal cases and in-camera statements, which he contended did not justify externment
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order on 27.11.2009; the appeal to the Government was dismissed
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act was validly passed based on the material available
Whether the in-camera statements and criminal cases were sufficient to show that the petitioner's activities caused alarm or danger in the area
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and there was no material to show that his activities caused alarm or danger in the area
The respondent-State argued that the order was based on the petitioner's criminal history and in-camera statements, and the petitioner was given due opportunity
Ratio Decidendi
For an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, there must be material to show that the person's activities cause alarm or danger in the area. Mere pendency of criminal cases and in-camera statements without specific evidence of such alarm or danger is insufficient to sustain the order.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order shows that the petitioner had the past history with five criminal cases against him registered at Wadala Police Station.
Taking into consideration all the material available, the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of exterment on the ground that due to the illegal acts of the petitioner, alarm or danger has been created in the mi...
The in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
The order does not show that there was any material to show that the petitioner's activities caused alarm or danger in the area.
Procedural History
On 19.8.2009, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner replied denying allegations. On 27.11.2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order. The petitioner appealed to the Government, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 15.7.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b), 107, 110(e)(g), 124
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 323, 324, 326, 379, 394, 427, 34
- Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1955: 3, 7(1)(a)(ii), 8
