Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order Against Petitioner Due to Absence of Live Link Between Offences and Externment Order. Externment Under Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 Set Aside as No Criminal Activity for 16-18 Months Before Show-Cause Notice.

Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The petitioner sought quashing of the externment order dated 27 March 2018.

The externment order was alleged to be unreasonable as it lacked live link with criminal activities, and the authority failed to independently satisfy the conditions for externment.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Amravati passed an externment order on 27 March 2018 externing the petitioner from Amravati district for two years under Section 56(1)(b).

Whether there exists a live link between the criminal activities of the petitioner and the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority as required under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Whether the failure of the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notices absolves the authority from independently applying its mind and satisfying the legal conditions for externment. Whether the gap of about 16-18 months between the last criminal activity and the issuance of show-cause notice renders the externment order arbitrary.

Petitioner: The impugned order is unreasonable as there is no nexus or live link with the alleged criminal activities. Respondent: Eight criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, the last crime was registered on 20 September 2016, and the show-cause notice issued on 30 January 2018 provides a proximate link; the petitioner did not file any reply, which supports the externment.

For externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, both conditions (reasonable belief of engagement in specified offences and unwillingness of witnesses due to fear) must coexist and be based on a live link between the alleged criminal activities and the subjective satisfaction of the authority. A significant time gap between the last offence and the show-cause notice, without any intervening criminal activity, negates the live link and renders the externment order arbitrary. Failure by the proposed externee to file a reply does not absolve the authority from the duty to independently apply its mind to the legal requirements.

the exercise of discretion regarding externing a person from a certain area infringes upon the liberty of an individual and, therefore, the authority seeking to restrict or curtail liberty of an individual must act reasonably and reasonableness of the action, we would further say, could not be presumed or inferred from the failure of a person to file reply to the showcause notice. This clause has two conditions which must be fulfilled and such fulfillment must be seen to be done subjectively, but on the basis of some material present on record furnishing an objective criteria for such subjective making up of mind. The first condition is that there must be reasonable ground to believe that the proposed externee is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence mentioned in this clause. The second condition is that in the opinion of the externing authority, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. If considerable period of time has gone by between the date of commission of last offence and the date of issuance of showcause notice, it will have to be said that there is absence of livelink between the criminal activities of the proposed externee and the subjective satisfaction of the authority or the reasons stated in the impugned order. Thus, there was a gap of about fifteen months between registration of last crime against the petitioner and the date of issuance of showcause notice. This time gap was further extended by three months when the impugned order dated 27 th March 2018 was passed in the present case. So, the time lag was about 1618 months in this case and during this period, admittedly, no criminal case or offence came to be registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner was externed from Amravati district for two years by order dated 27 March 2018 under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court challenging the order. After hearing parties, the court pronounced judgment on 13 February 2019, quashing the externment orders.

• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: Section 56(1)(b)
• Indian Penal Code: Secs 452, 448, 427, 34