Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shahid Mohammedali Bepari, challenged an externment order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Miraj, under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, externing him from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur for two years. The order was based on a notice dated 20.8.2010 which alleged that the petitioner was a 'ringleader' in a communal riot on 2.9.2009, where he spread rumours, led a mob, and danced on a police jeep holding a green flag, resulting in stone-throwing and 37 cognizable cases. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 60, which was dismissed by the State Government. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, examined the validity of the externment order. The court found that the notice and the order were vague, merely describing the petitioner as 'cruel', 'dare devil', and 'vindictive' without specifying any concrete harmful activities. The court held that the authority did not apply its mind to whether less drastic remedies, such as binding over under Section 107 or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would be sufficient. The court emphasized that externment is a serious restriction on personal liberty and must be based on specific material showing that the petitioner's movements are causing harm or danger. Since the order lacked such material and showed non-application of mind, the court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1) - Validity of Order - The externment order was challenged on grounds of vagueness and non-application of mind - The court held that the notice and order did not specify the nature of the petitioner's harmful activities and failed to consider whether less drastic remedies would suffice - The order was quashed as it was based on vague allegations and lacked material to show that the petitioner's movements were causing harm or danger (Paras 5-8). B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Notice - Requirement of Specificity - The notice under Section 56(1) must clearly state the nature of the activities alleged to be harmful - The court found that the notice merely used adjectives like 'cruel', 'dare devil', and 'vindictive' without specifying any concrete acts - Such vague notice does not satisfy the requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause (Paras 5-6). C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Non-Application of Mind - The authority must apply its mind to the necessity of externment and consider whether other measures like binding over under Section 107 or 110 of CrPC would be sufficient - The court noted that the order did not reflect any such consideration, indicating non-application of mind (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was validly passed based on the material on record and whether the authority applied its mind to the necessity of externment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order dated 11.4.2011 and the appellate order, and made the rule absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific material
- not vague allegations
- Authority must consider less drastic remedies before ordering externment
- Notice must clearly state the nature of harmful activities
- Non-application of mind vitiates the order.
