Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prashant Mahadeorao Bodakhe, a 28-year-old student and social activist working for tribal rights, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalamnuri, on 24 September 2018 in Externment Case No. 3/2018, and the subsequent appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The externment order directed the petitioner to remove himself from Hingoli district for a specified period. The show cause notice dated 25 July 2018 was issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that the petitioner's presence in Hingoli city and surrounding areas created danger to life and property, and that despite preventive measures, he had not improved his conduct. The notice specifically mentioned Crime Register No. 83/2018 as material. The petitioner contended that the externment order was based on vague allegations and a single FIR, without any material to show that he was a habitual offender or that his presence was dangerous. The court examined the record and found that the show cause notice lacked specific instances of dangerous activities and that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind. The court also noted that the appellate authority had not adequately considered the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition. The court held that the material on record did not justify the extreme step of externment, especially against a social activist, and that the authorities had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 59 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Externment Order - The petitioner, a social activist, was externed from Hingoli district based on a single FIR and vague allegations. The court held that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the petitioner's explanation. The order was quashed as the material did not justify externment. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Law - Show Cause Notice - Section 59 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Requirement of Specific Grounds - The show cause notice must contain specific instances of dangerous activities. In this case, the notice merely referred to one FIR and general allegations, which was insufficient to sustain an externment order. (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Law - Appellate Authority - Section 60 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Duty to Consider All Grounds - The appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner) failed to properly consider the petitioner's submissions and mechanically confirmed the externment order. The court set aside the appellate order as well. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was valid and sustainable in law
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 24.9.2018 and the appellate order. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific material showing danger to life and property
- mere registration of FIRs insufficient
- show cause notice must specify grounds
- appellate authority must consider all contentions
