Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Radhakisan Waman Patol, a resident of Wadgaon (Kolhati), Aurangabad, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an externment order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, and the appellate order dated 24.2.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security), Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chhawani Division, Aurangabad, issued a show cause notice dated 14.8.2010 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed from Aurangabad and Ahmednagar districts for two years under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, citing his criminal activities and pending offences. The petitioner replied on 17.8.2010 denying the allegations and stating that false cases were registered against him. After an audience, the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order. The petitioner appealed to the Principal Secretary, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the show cause notice was served in the manner prescribed by Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner argued that the notice was sent by registered post and not served personally or by affixation as required. The State contended that service by registered post was sufficient. The court examined Section 59 and found that it mandates service by delivering or tendering a copy to the person, and if not found, by affixing a copy on the outer door or conspicuous part of the house and publishing in the Official Gazette. The court noted that the record did not show any attempt at personal service or affixation, and mere sending by registered post did not comply with the statutory requirement. Consequently, the court held that the externment order and the appellate order were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order dated 22.10.2010 and the appellate order dated 24.2.2011, and made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Show Cause Notice - Service of Notice - Section 59 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The show cause notice under Section 59 must be served in the manner prescribed by law, i.e., by delivering or tendering a copy thereof to the person concerned, and if not found, by affixing a copy on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house and publishing in the Official Gazette. In the present case, the notice was merely sent by registered post and not served in the prescribed manner, rendering the externment order invalid. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Validity of Order - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - An externment order passed under Section 56 is liable to be quashed if the procedural requirement of service of show cause notice under Section 59 is not complied with. The court held that the failure to serve the notice in the manner prescribed vitiates the entire proceedings. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show cause notice under Section 59 of the said Act was not served in the manner prescribed by law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and the judgment and order dated 24.2.2011 passed by respondent no.3 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order
- Show cause notice
- Service of notice
- Section 59 Bombay Police Act
- Section 56 Bombay Police Act
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Natural justice
