Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Ajay Manbodhprasad Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an externment order dated 20th February 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vashi, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 31st August 2012 confirming the same. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were based on stale material, specifically two criminal cases from 2009 (Crime No.256/2009 under Sections 379, 411 read with 34 IPC and Crime No.173/2009 under Section 380 read with 34 IPC), which had no nexus with his condition and behaviour at the time the orders were passed. He also argued that the order referred to some other material on which no notice was given, denying him a proper opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, he submitted that there was no evidence to show that his activities were so prejudicial as to warrant externment from three districts (Thane, Raigad, and Mumbai suburban). The State, represented by the learned APP, argued that sufficient material was brought on record during the inquiry and that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted. The court, after perusing the petition, documents, impugned orders, and affidavit in reply, found considerable merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the show cause notice dated 1st December 2011 mentioned only two cases from 2009, which were old and did not demonstrate any continuing harmful activity. The court held that the externment order suffered from non-application of mind and was based on insufficient material, as there was no proximate nexus between the stale material and the petitioner's current behaviour. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) - Validity of Externment Order - Challenge to externment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police and confirmed by appellate authority - Petitioner argued that the order was based on stale material (two cases from 2009) with no nexus to his current behaviour and that no notice was given regarding some material - Court found merit in petitioner's arguments and held that the externment order suffered from non-application of mind and was based on insufficient material - Held that the order cannot be sustained and is quashed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when based on old material having no nexus with the petitioner's current behaviour and when no notice was given regarding some material relied upon.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the externment order dated 20th February 2012 and the appellate order dated 31st August 2012.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on material having proximate nexus with the condition and behaviour of the person at the time of passing the order
- Non-application of mind renders externment order invalid
- Reliance on stale material without fresh evidence vitiates the order
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 217
Writ Petition No. 146 of 2013
S. C. Dharmadhikari, S. B. Shukre
Mr. M.J. Bhatt for the petitioner, Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the respondents
Mr. Ajay Manbodhprasad Gupta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging externment order under Bombay Police Act, 1951
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment order dated 20th February 2012 and appellate order dated 31st August 2012
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by externment order based on stale material and non-application of mind
Previous Decisions
Externment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vashi on 20th February 2012; appellate authority confirmed the order on 31st August 2012
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when based on old material having no nexus with the petitioner's current behaviour?
Whether the externment order is vitiated due to non-application of mind and insufficiency of material?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were based on stale material (two cases from 2009) with no nexus to his current behaviour, and that no notice was given regarding some material relied upon, denying him proper opportunity to defend.
Petitioner further argued that there was no evidence to show his activities were so prejudicial as to warrant externment from three districts.
State argued that sufficient material was brought on record during inquiry and adequate opportunity of hearing was granted, justifying the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must be based on material that has a proximate nexus with the condition and behaviour of the person at the time of passing the order. Reliance on stale material without any fresh evidence indicating continuing harmful activity amounts to non-application of mind and renders the order invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order of externment dated 20th February, 2012 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Vashi and the order of the appellate authority passed on 31st August, 2012 confirming the same.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are based upon some old material having no nexus with the condition and behaviour of the petitioner at the time when the impugned orders were passed and, therefore, the impugned orders suffer from complete nonapplication of mind and insufficiency of material.
Upon doing so, what we find is that, there is considerable merit in the arguments advanced before us on behalf of the petitioner and no substance in the case of the respondents as put forward before us by the learned A.P.P.
Procedural History
Show cause notice issued on 1st December 2011 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Bombay Police Act, 1951; externment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vashi on 20th February 2012; appeal dismissed by appellate authority on 31st August 2012; writ petition filed in Bombay High Court on 2013; judgment reserved on 10th July 2013 and delivered on 30th July 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 379, 411, 380, 34
