Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nadeem Hanif Khan @ Nadeem Chada, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, Mumbai on 31st August, 2012, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The order externed him from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioner argued that the order was vague because the operative part filled '02' in the blanks before 'year/month' without striking off either option, making it unclear whether the externment was for 2 years or 2 months. Additionally, the order relied on Crime No.175/12 under Section 509 IPC registered on 30th July, 2012, which was not mentioned in the show cause notice dated 23rd January, 2012, thus denying him a reasonable opportunity to defend. The order also failed to record the mandatory satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him out of fear. The State conceded the vagueness. The High Court, per S.B. Shukre J., held that the order was vague and based on extraneous material, and quashed it, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Externment Law - Vagueness of Order - Period of Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The impugned order of externment failed to specify whether the period of externment was for 2 years or 2 months, as the blanks before 'year/month' were filled with '02' without striking off the inappropriate option - Held that such vagueness renders the order incapable of compliance and liable to be quashed (Paras 3, 5).
B) Externment Law - Show Cause Notice - Reliance on Extraneous Material - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The externing authority relied on Crime No.175/12 registered on 30th July, 2012 under Section 509 IPC, which was not mentioned in the show cause notice dated 23rd January, 2012 - Held that this deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to defend and vitiated the order (Paras 3, 5).
C) Externment Law - Satisfaction of Unwillingness of Witnesses - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The impugned order did not record a satisfaction that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner out of fear - Held that this is a mandatory requirement and its absence makes the order unsustainable (Paras 3, 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order that is vague about the period of externment and based on material not mentioned in the show cause notice is sustainable in law
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order dated 31st August, 2012.
Law Points
- Externment order must specify period clearly
- Show cause notice must contain all material facts
- Satisfaction of unwillingness of witnesses must be recorded
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 110
Criminal Writ Petition No.3165 of 2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Shukre
Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner, Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State
Nadeem Hanif Khan @ Nadeem Chada
Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, Mumbai; Principal Secretary (Spl), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the externment order dated 31st August, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, Mumbai.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the externment order which was vague, based on extraneous material, and did not comply with mandatory legal requirements.
Previous Decisions
The externment order was passed on 31st August, 2012 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, Mumbai.
Issues
Whether the externment order is vague as it does not clearly specify the period of externment (year or month).
Whether the externment order is based on extraneous material not mentioned in the show cause notice, thereby denying reasonable opportunity.
Whether the externment order records the mandatory satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to depose out of fear.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order is illegal, perverse, and confusing; the operative part filled '02' without indicating month or year; the order relied on Crime No.175/12 not in the show cause notice; no satisfaction of witness unwillingness recorded.
State conceded that the order is vague.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 must clearly specify the period of externment, must be based only on material disclosed in the show cause notice, and must record the satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to depose out of fear. Failure to do so renders the order vague and unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Being aggrieved by the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1 on 31st August, 2012, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the same.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has fairly conceded that the impugned order is vague as it does not specify the period of externment.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, Mumbai passed an externment order on 31st August, 2012 under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3165 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 26th July, 2013, pronouncing it on 23rd August, 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 509
- Constitution of India, 1950: 226, 227
