Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioners, Sumit Maraskolhe, Sajid Qureshi, and Hamid Pyariwale, were externed from Nagpur city for periods up to two years. The petitioners argued that the orders were illegal, irrational, and arbitrary, showing no application of mind and violating the principle of audi alteram partem. The Division Bench, upon hearing, referred two questions to a larger bench: whether the externment orders were excessive and whether the authority had properly applied its mind. The court, per Sunil B. Shukre J., analyzed the requirements of Section 56(1)(a) and (b), emphasizing that the authority must have subjective satisfaction based on material that the person's movements cause alarm or that he is engaged in offences, and that witnesses are unwilling to testify due to fear. The court also stressed the importance of adhering to natural justice, including giving a fair hearing. The judgment noted that the orders must not be excessive or arbitrary, and the period of externment must be proportionate. The court ultimately upheld the externment orders, finding that the authority had applied its mind and complied with procedural requirements. The petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - The court considered whether externment orders were based on proper application of mind and subjective satisfaction of the authority. Held that the authority must form a reasonable belief that the person's movements cause alarm or that he is engaged in offences, and witnesses are unwilling to testify due to fear. (Paras 3-4)
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Audi Alteram Partem - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Natural Justice - The court examined whether the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. Held that the authority must give a fair hearing before passing an externment order, and failure to do so renders the order arbitrary. (Para 4)
C) Criminal Law - Externment - Proportionality - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Excessive Order - The court assessed whether the externment period of up to two years was excessive. Held that the period must be proportionate to the threat and not be arbitrary or disproportionate. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are illegal, irrational, and arbitrary for being excessive and lacking application of mind, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem was violated.
Final Decision
The court upheld the externment orders and dismissed the criminal writ petitions, finding that the authority had applied its mind and complied with procedural requirements.
Law Points
- Externment under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction of the authority
- application of mind
- and adherence to principles of natural justice
- including audi alteram partem
- orders must not be excessive or arbitrary.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 135
Criminal Writ Petition No.1002/2017, Criminal Writ Petition No.1006/2017, Criminal Writ Petition No.1249/2017
P. N. Deshmukh, Sunil B. Shukre, Z. A. Haq
Shri R.R. Vyas, Shri Laique Hussain, Shri J.B. Kasat for Petitioners; Shri M.K. Pathan, Addl. P.P. for Respondents
Sumit s/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe, Sajid Ibrahim @ Babloo Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Hamid Chhanva Pyariwale
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone1, Nagpur City, Nagpur; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sonegaon Division, Nagpur City, Nagpur; Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No.5, Dixit Nagar, Nari Road, Nagpur; The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati; Deputy Commissioner of Police, [Zone 1], Amravati City Police Commissionerate, Amravati City, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of externment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were externed from Nagpur city for periods up to two years, which they claimed was illegal, irrational, and arbitrary.
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger bench to answer two questions regarding the legality and proportionality of the externment orders.
Issues
Whether the externment orders under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 were passed with proper application of mind and subjective satisfaction.
Whether the principle of audi alteram partem was violated in the externment proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the externment orders were excessive, arbitrary, and showed no application of mind, violating the principle of audi alteram partem.
Respondents contended that the orders were based on subjective satisfaction and material on record, and were necessary to prevent alarm and danger to the public.
Ratio Decidendi
Externment orders under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 require the authority to have subjective satisfaction based on material that the person's movements cause alarm or that he is engaged in offences, and that witnesses are unwilling to testify due to fear. The orders must be proportionate and not excessive, and the principle of audi alteram partem must be followed.
Judgment Excerpts
The power invoked by respondent No.1 is under Section 56(1)(a)and(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act (in short, “Act 1951”).
Clause (a) of Section 56(1) requires that the movements or activities of a person are causing alarm, danger or harm to the person and property.
Clause (b) of the Section comes into play if the authority empowered under the Act 1951 acting reasonably believes that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offences enumerated in this clause and is also of the opinion that the witnesses for fear of reprisal are unwilling to give evidence in public against such person.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed criminal writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging externment orders. The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger bench to answer two questions formulated in the referral order dated 5th February 2018. The larger bench heard the matters and delivered judgment on 8th February 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b)
