Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order for Non-Compliance with Section 59 Mumbai Police Act — Show Cause Notice Not Served by Externing Authority. Show cause notice under Section 59 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself; notice issued by ACP, a subordinate officer, renders the externment order invalid.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mohd. Najib Mohd. Aslam @ Sheru Kashmiri, challenged an externment order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Mumbai under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 22.11.2010 confirming it. The externment order directed the petitioner to remove himself from Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Raigad, and Pune districts for a period of two years. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Act was not issued by the Externing Authority (DCP) but by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dongari Division, who was not the competent authority. The court examined the proposal submitted by the Senior Police Inspector of J.J. Marg Police Station on 04.08.2010, the show cause notice issued by ACP Dongari Division, and the subsequent externment order by DCP. The court held that Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act mandates that the show cause notice must be issued by the Externing Authority himself, i.e., the officer empowered to pass the externment order. Since the notice was issued by the ACP, who was not the Externing Authority, the mandatory requirement was not complied with. The court distinguished the case from the decision in Pandharinath Shridhar Karandikar v. State of Maharashtra, where the notice was issued by the same authority. The court also noted that the appellate authority's confirmation cannot cure the initial defect. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the externment order and the appellate order, and set aside the rule.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Externment - Show Cause Notice - Section 59 read with Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 - The show cause notice under Section 59 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself and not by any subordinate officer - In the present case, the notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was not the Externing Authority - Held that the externment order is invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 59 (Paras 7-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself or can be issued by a delegate, and whether non-compliance vitiates the externment order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition allowed. Externment order dated 20.09.2010 and appellate order dated 22.11.2010 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Mumbai Police Act
  • 1951 must be preceded by show cause notice under Section 59 issued by the Externing Authority himself
  • not by a delegate
  • non-compliance renders order invalid
  • appellate authority's confirmation does not cure defect.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 80

Criminal Writ Petition No.3504 of 2010

2011-04-08

A. R. Joshi

Mr.N.N. Gavankar i/b. Mr.Arfan Sait for Petitioner, Mr.J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for State

Mohd. Najib Mohd. Aslam @ Sheru Kashmiri

The State of Maharashtra, The Dy. Commissioner of Police, ZoneI, Mumbai, The Principal Secretary (Appeal & Security), Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition challenging externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Mumbai Police Act, 1951

Remedy Sought

Quashing of externment order dated 20.09.2010 and appellate order dated 22.11.2010

Filing Reason

Show cause notice under Section 59 was issued by ACP, not by Externing Authority (DCP), violating mandatory requirement

Previous Decisions

Externment order passed by DCP on 20.09.2010; confirmed by Appellate Authority on 22.11.2010

Issues

Whether the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself? Whether the externment order is invalid due to non-compliance with Section 59?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that show cause notice was issued by ACP, not by Externing Authority (DCP), violating Section 59. State argued that the notice was valid as it was issued by a competent officer and the defect, if any, was cured by the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi

The show cause notice under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself, i.e., the officer empowered to pass the externment order. Issuance by a subordinate officer (ACP) renders the externment order invalid, and the defect is not cured by confirmation by the appellate authority.

Judgment Excerpts

The show cause notice under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 must be issued by the Externing Authority himself and not by any subordinate officer. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was not the Externing Authority. Hence, the mandatory requirement of Section 59 is not complied with.

Procedural History

Senior PI of J.J. Marg Police Station submitted proposal on 04.08.2010 to DCP for externment under Section 56(1)(a)(b). Show cause notice issued by ACP Dongari Division on 09.08.2010. After hearing, DCP passed externment order on 20.09.2010. Petitioner appealed; Appellate Authority confirmed order on 22.11.2010. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3504 of 2010 in Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Mumbai Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a)(b), 59
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Union of India in Age Determination of High Court Judge Under Article 217(3) Constitution — Reverses High Court's Quashing of President's Order. President's decision based on Chief Justice of India's advice after disclosure of...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State in U.P. Land Ceiling Act Constitutional Challenge; Provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and Rules Are Valid. Statutory Rule Within Powers Conferred by a Section of a Statute Protected by Arti...