Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Nilesh Prabhakar Chondalkar, challenged an externment order passed on 8.2.2012 by the Appropriate Authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, and the appellate order dated 21.3.2012 confirming it. The proceedings were initiated by the Sponsoring Authority on 18.2.2011, and a show cause notice was issued on 23.3.2011. However, there was a complete lull from 23.3.2011 until 26.5.2011, when the first hearing took place. The Appropriate Authority took almost one year to record its subjective satisfaction and pass the externment order. The petitioner argued that this unexplained delay vitiated the order. The State contended that the delay after 26.5.2011 was due to adjournments sought by the petitioner. The Court observed that the externment order is a preventive action, not punitive, and must be resorted to when immediate removal is imminent. The unexplained gap of over two months between the show cause notice and the first hearing, and the overall delay of nearly one year, cast serious doubt on the necessity of the externment. The Court held that the authority's duty to decide such proceedings with utmost despatch is not absolved by the petitioner's requests for adjournment. Consequently, the Court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Externment - Unexplained Delay - The Appropriate Authority took almost one year to pass an externment order, with no explanation for the inaction between 23.3.2011 and 26.5.2011. The Court held that such delay casts serious doubt on the necessity of immediate removal and that the authority must decide externment proceedings with utmost despatch. (Paras 4-6)
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Duty of Authority - The fact that the petitioner sought adjournments does not extricate the Appropriate Authority from its duty to decide externment proceedings promptly, as they are intended for immediate preventive action. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act can be sustained when there is an unexplained delay of over two months between issuance of show cause notice and first hearing, and the authority took nearly one year to pass the order.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 8.2.2012 and the appellate order dated 21.3.2012. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Preventive action must be taken promptly
- unexplained delay casts doubt on necessity of externment
- duty of authority to decide expeditiously
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 85
Criminal Writ Petition No.1383 of 2012
A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.G.KETKAR
Mr Satyaram Gaud for Petitioner, Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P for Respondent-State
Mr Nilesh Prabhakar Chondalkar
State of Maharashtra and Ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order and its confirmation by the appellate authority.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 8.2.2012 and the appellate order dated 21.3.2012.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the externment order on the ground of unexplained delay in the proceedings, which cast doubt on the necessity of immediate removal.
Previous Decisions
The Appropriate Authority passed the externment order on 8.2.2012, and the Appellate Authority confirmed it on 21.3.2012.
Issues
Whether the externment order is vitiated due to unexplained delay between the show cause notice (23.3.2011) and the first hearing (26.5.2011), and the overall delay of nearly one year in passing the order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the unexplained delay of over two months between show cause notice and first hearing, and the authority taking almost one year to pass the order, casts serious doubt on the necessity of immediate removal.
Respondent-State argued that the delay after 26.5.2011 was due to adjournments sought by the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order, being a preventive action, must be passed with utmost despatch. Unexplained delay in proceedings, especially between the show cause notice and the first hearing, casts serious doubt on the necessity of immediate removal and vitiates the order. The authority's duty to decide expeditiously is not absolved by the petitioner's requests for adjournment.
Judgment Excerpts
The fact that the Appropriate Authority took almost one year to record subjective satisfaction in this behalf, casts serious doubt about the necessity of immediate removal of the petitioner from the specified area.
The fact that the petitioner's request for adjournment does not extricate the Appropriate Authority from its duty to decide externment proceedings with utmost despatch, which are intended for immediate removal of the person from the specified area as preventive action.
Procedural History
The Sponsoring Authority initiated proceedings on 18.2.2011. Show cause notice was issued on 23.3.2011. First hearing before the Appropriate Authority was on 26.5.2011. The Appropriate Authority passed the externment order on 8.2.2012. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order on 21.3.2012. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Police Act:
