Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Aaratmal Ramtara @ Kara, challenged an externment order dated 16th May 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order directed the petitioner to not enter or return to Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District for one year. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 19th February 2011 issued under Section 59 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chembur Division, proposing externment. The notice referred to 22 criminal cases and in-camera statements of witnesses. The petitioner filed a reply and was heard, but the authority passed the externment order. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main legal issue was whether the show-cause notice under Section 59 was validly issued and served by an officer authorized by the State Government. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner of Police was not authorized, while the State contended that the notice was valid. The court examined Section 59, which requires the notice to be issued by an officer authorized by the State Government. The court found that the record did not show any authorization by the State Government to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Therefore, the notice was not in compliance with Section 59, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. The court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Show-Cause Notice - Section 59 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The show-cause notice under Section 59 must be issued and served by an officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf - In the present case, the notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chembur Division, who was not shown to be authorized by the State Government - Held that the entire externment proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 59 (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Validity of Order - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) is based on a show-cause notice that was not served by an authorized officer - Consequently, the order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed - Held that the petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show-cause notice under Section 59 was issued and served by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was not authorized by the State Government to do so.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment dated 16th May 2011 is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 must be preceded by a show-cause notice under Section 59 served by an officer authorized by the State Government
- Service of notice by Assistant Commissioner of Police without authorization renders the proceedings void ab initio
