Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Narendra Parshuram Patil and Mayur Waman Chaudhary, social workers from Nandurbar, filed a criminal writ petition seeking compensation from the State of Maharashtra and other respondents for being prevented from entering their native place, Nandurbar city, from 16 September 2018 to 23 September 2018. They alleged that due to their social activities, the police developed a grudge against them. An externment proceeding under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act was initiated against petitioner No.1 in 2017, but the Sub Divisional Magistrate dropped it after considering his explanation. Subsequently, on 15 September 2018, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) preventing the petitioners from entering Nandurbar city for a week. Petitioner No.1 challenged this order before the Sessions Court, which set it aside on 21 September 2018. The petitioners claimed that the order was illegal and mala fide, causing them humiliation and loss of reputation, and sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 each. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the order was passed by a competent authority based on reasonable apprehension of breach of peace, and that the petitioners had not suffered any special damage. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, comprising Justices T.V. Nalawade and K.K. Sonawane, dismissed the petition. The court held that compensation for violation of fundamental rights is not automatic and requires proof of malice or gross negligence, which was absent in this case. The order under Section 144(2) was passed by a competent authority and was not patently illegal; the Sessions Court set it aside on merits, but that did not render the initial order mala fide. The petitioners did not suffer any special damage beyond the inconvenience of being kept out for a few days. The court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the order before the appropriate forum during its operation, and the claim for compensation was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution without proof of malice or exceptional circumstances.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights - Article 21, Article 226 - Claim for compensation for illegal externment - Petitioners sought compensation for being prevented from entering their native place under an order under Section 144(2) CrPC, later set aside - Court held that compensation for violation of fundamental rights is not automatic and requires proof of malice or gross negligence; no such proof in this case - Held that the order was passed by a competent authority and was not patently illegal, and the petitioners did not suffer any special damage beyond the inconvenience of being kept out for a few days (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 144(2) CrPC - Externment Order - Validity - Order under Section 144(2) CrPC preventing petitioners from entering Nandurbar city for a week - Order was passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 15-9-2018, set aside by Sessions Court on 21-9-2018 - Court observed that the order was passed by a competent authority and was not without jurisdiction; the Sessions Court set it aside on merits - Held that the order was not patently illegal or mala fide (Paras 3-8). C) Maharashtra Police Act - Section 59 - Externment Proceeding - Previous externment proceeding against petitioner No.1 under Section 59 was dropped by SDM - Court noted that the proceeding was dropped after considering explanation, but the same reasons were cited for the Section 144 order - Held that the dropping of earlier proceeding does not render the subsequent order illegal (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for being prevented from entering their native place under an order passed under Section 144(2) CrPC, which was later set aside by the Sessions Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that compensation for violation of fundamental rights is not automatic and requires proof of malice or gross negligence, which was absent. The order under Section 144(2) was passed by a competent authority and was not patently illegal. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compensation for violation of fundamental rights
- Section 144 CrPC
- Maharashtra Police Act
- Externment proceedings
- Right to life and liberty
- Article 21
- Article 226
