Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sandip Devidas Thorat, a resident of Kopargaon, Ahmednagar, was issued a show cause notice dated 15th April 2009 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kopargaon, directing him to remove himself from the boundaries of Aurangabad, Nashik, and Ahmednagar districts for one year. The petitioner filed written arguments on 29th September 2009. After hearing the petitioner's advocate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Respondent No.2) passed an externment order on 24th December 2009 under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, directing the petitioner not to enter the three districts for one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Principal Secretary (Appeals & Hearing), Home Department (Respondent No.1) under Section 60 of the Act, but the appeal was dismissed on 23rd April 2010. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging both orders. The main legal issue was whether the externment order was sustainable when the authorities did not consider whether the petitioner could be dealt with under other provisions of law. The petitioner argued that the externment order was passed without considering less drastic remedies, such as taking security for good behavior under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The respondents contended that the order was justified based on the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and noted that the authority must consider whether the person can be dealt with under other provisions of law before resorting to externment. The court found that neither the externment order nor the appellate order addressed this requirement. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside both the externment order dated 24th December 2009 and the appellate order dated 23rd April 2010, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Necessity of Considering Less Restrictive Measures - The court held that before passing an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the authority must consider whether the person can be dealt with under other provisions of law, such as taking security for good behavior under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 6-7) B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Appeal - Section 60 - Appellate Authority's Duty - The appellate authority under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must independently examine the legality and propriety of the externment order. In this case, the appellate authority merely confirmed the order without addressing the petitioner's contention regarding less drastic remedies, which was held to be improper. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the authorities did not consider whether the petitioner could be dealt with under other provisions of law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed by respondent No.1 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires consideration of less drastic remedies
- Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act
- 1951
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Section 60 Bombay Police Act
