Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed 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 and other areas for periods up to two years by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 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 regarding the interpretation and application of Section 56(1)(a) and (b). The court analyzed the distinct requirements of each clause: clause (a) requires that the person's movements or activities cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property; clause (b) requires a reasonable belief that the person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of specified offences and that witnesses are unwilling to give evidence due to fear of reprisal. The court held that the externment authority must satisfy these conditions based on material and must apply mind to the proportionality of the order. The principle of audi alteram partem must be strictly followed. The court ultimately upheld the validity of the externment orders, finding that the conditions were met and the orders were not excessive. The petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Conditions for Externment - The court examined whether the externment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) were valid. Held that each clause has distinct requirements: clause (a) requires that movements or activities cause alarm, danger or harm; clause (b) requires reasonable belief of engagement in offences and unwillingness of witnesses due to fear. The orders must be based on material showing satisfaction of these conditions. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Proportionality - Section 56(1) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The court considered whether the externment periods (up to two years) were excessive. Held that the authority must apply mind to the necessity and duration of externment, ensuring it is not arbitrary or disproportionate. (Para 4) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Audi Alteram Partem - Section 56(1) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The court emphasized that the principle of natural justice must be followed before passing externment orders. Held that the show-cause notice and hearing must be meaningful and not a mere formality. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are valid and whether the conditions for invoking each clause are satisfied
Final Decision
The court upheld the externment orders and dismissed the petitions, finding that the conditions under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied and the orders were not excessive or arbitrary.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires satisfaction of conditions separately
- clause (a) requires movements causing alarm/danger/harm
- clause (b) requires reasonable belief of engagement in offences and unwillingness of witnesses due to fear
- order must be proportionate and not excessive
- principle of audi alteram partem must be followed
