Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Raghunath Patil, challenged an externment order dated 20th September 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 2, Panvel, under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, externing him from the districts of Raigad, Thane, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban for one year. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 31st December 2010. The externment was proposed based on a proposal from the Senior Inspector of Police, Panvel City Police Station, alleging that the petitioner was a bully involved in unlawful assembly, rioting, damaging property, causing grievous hurt, and that witnesses were afraid to come forward. The proposal relied on four criminal cases registered against the petitioner and in-camera statements recorded during confidential inquiries. The petitioner contended that the externment order was illegal as the in-camera statements were not supplied to him, and the notice period of only 7 days to show cause was inadequate, violating Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act and principles of natural justice. The court, after hearing rival arguments and perusing the affidavit of the externing authority, found that the petitioner was not supplied with copies of the in-camera statements, which is mandatory under Section 59. Additionally, the notice period of 7 days was held to be too short to constitute a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56, Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Externment Order - Petitioner challenged externment order externing him from Raigad, Thane, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban for one year - Court held that failure to supply in-camera statements and inadequate notice period of 7 days violated principles of natural justice and Section 59 of the Act - Order quashed (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Supply of In-Camera Statements - It is mandatory for the externing authority to supply copies of in-camera statements to the proposed externee - Non-supply vitiates the externment order - Held that the petitioner was not given copies of in-camera statements, thus the order cannot be sustained (Paras 8-10). C) Criminal Law - Externment - Notice Period - Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing - Notice of only 7 days to show cause against externment is inadequate and does not provide reasonable opportunity - Held that the notice period was too short and violated principles of natural justice (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is sustainable in law, particularly when the in-camera statements were not supplied to the petitioner and the notice period was inadequate.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. Externment order dated 20th September 2010 and appellate order dated 31st December 2010 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Bombay Police Act
- 1951 must comply with Section 59 requirements
- supply of in-camera statements is mandatory
- notice period must be reasonable
- non-compliance renders order invalid
