Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench heard three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioners, Shaikh Shahid Ahmad, Atikur Rehman, Shahjad Khan, and Mohammed Danish, were externed from the districts of Buldhana and neighboring areas by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malkapur. The orders were confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The petitioners argued that the externment orders were passed without recording subjective satisfaction, without supplying in-camera statements, and were based on stale and trivial incidents. The State opposed the petitions, contending that the orders were valid. The court examined the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) and found that the authority had failed to record subjective satisfaction that the petitioners' movements were causing danger or harm. Additionally, the in-camera statements were not supplied to the petitioners, violating natural justice. The court also noted that the incidents cited were stale and trivial. Consequently, the court quashed the externment orders and allowed the petitions.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The authority must record subjective satisfaction based on material that the movements or acts of the person are causing or are likely to cause danger, alarm, or harm. Failure to record such satisfaction renders the order invalid. (Paras 5-7)
B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - In-camera Statements - Non-supply of in-camera statements to the externed person violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the externment order. (Paras 8-10)
C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Stale Incidents - Externment order cannot be based on stale or trivial incidents; the material must show a clear and present danger. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are valid when the authority fails to record subjective satisfaction and does not supply in-camera statements to the externed person.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions, quashed the externment orders, and set aside the confirmation by the Divisional Commissioner. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authority based on material
- failure to record satisfaction invalidates order
- non-supply of in-camera statements violates principles of natural justice
- externment order cannot be based on stale or trivial incidents
- requirement of recording reasons for externment
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 122
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1173 of 2018 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2018 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 4 of 2019
Sunil B. Shukre, S.M. Modak
Firdos Mirza, Abdul Subhan, S.S. Doifode
Shaikh Shahid Ahmad, Atikur Rehman, Shahjad Khan, Mohammed Danish
The State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent of Police and Externment Tribunal, Buldhana, The SubDivisional Police Officer, Malkapur, The Police Station InCharge, Police Station, Malkapur, The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment orders and setting aside of the confirmation by the Divisional Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were externed from Buldhana and neighboring districts by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malkapur, and the orders were confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The petitioners challenged the orders on grounds of lack of subjective satisfaction, non-supply of in-camera statements, and reliance on stale and trivial incidents.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer passed externment orders; the Divisional Commissioner confirmed them on appeal.
Issues
Whether the externment orders under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are valid when the authority fails to record subjective satisfaction.
Whether non-supply of in-camera statements to the externed person violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the externment order.
Whether externment orders can be based on stale and trivial incidents.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the externment orders were passed without recording subjective satisfaction, without supplying in-camera statements, and were based on stale and trivial incidents.
Respondents argued that the orders were valid and passed after due consideration of material.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the authority must record subjective satisfaction based on material that the movements or acts of the person are causing or are likely to cause danger, alarm, or harm. Failure to record such satisfaction and non-supply of in-camera statements violate principles of natural justice and render the externment order invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The authority must record subjective satisfaction based on material that the movements or acts of the person are causing or are likely to cause danger, alarm, or harm.
Non-supply of in-camera statements to the externed person violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the externment order.
Externment order cannot be based on stale or trivial incidents.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malkapur, passed externment orders under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioners appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who confirmed the orders. The petitioners then filed criminal writ petitions before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench, which were heard and decided on January 28, 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(b)
