Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Krishna @ Gotia Bajarang Chikne, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Mumbai, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which externed him from the districts of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, and Raigad for two years. The order followed a show-cause notice dated 11th March 2013, and was confirmed by the appellate authority on 28th August 2013. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found that all previous criminal cases against the petitioner were within the limits of Shivaji Nagar and Deonar Police Stations only. There was no material in the externment order or the appellate order justifying the vast geographical area of externment. The appellate authority had cursorily dismissed the petitioner's objection by stating that fast-moving transport justified the action, which the court found unsatisfactory and incorrect in law. The court held that while authorities have discretion to decide the area and duration of externment, the order must be non-arbitrary and not excessive. In this case, the order was excessive both in extent and duration, and therefore unsustainable. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Excessive Order - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) - The externment order externed the petitioner from four districts for two years, but all criminal cases were within two police station limits. The court held that the order was excessive and arbitrary, as there was no material justifying the vast area and duration. The appellate authority's cursory dismissal citing fast transport was unsatisfactory. (Paras 4-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Externment Orders - The court can strike down an externment order if it is excessive and unsupported by material. The order must be non-arbitrary and proportionate to the threat. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, that externs a person from a vast geographical area for a period of two years, based on criminal activities confined to two police station limits, is excessive and arbitrary.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 11th June 2013 and the appellate order dated 28th August 2013, as they were excessive and unsustainable.
Law Points
- Externment order must be non-arbitrary and not excessive
- cannot be more than situation demands
- absence of material justifying extent and duration renders order unsustainable
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 43
Writ Petition No.3451 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel
Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the Petitioner, Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State
Krishna @ Gotia Bajarang Chikne
The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone – VI, Mumbai; Secretary (Spl), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging an externment order and appellate order under Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 11th June 2013 and the appellate order dated 28th August 2013.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from four districts for two years based on criminal cases within two police station limits, which he claimed was excessive and arbitrary.
Previous Decisions
Show-cause notice on 11th March 2013; Externment order on 11th June 2013 by Dy. Commissioner of Police; Appeal dismissed on 28th August 2013 by Secretary (Spl), Home Department.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, externing the petitioner from four districts for two years, is excessive and arbitrary given that all criminal cases were within two police station limits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the externment order is excessive as it covers a vast geographical area (Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Raigad) for two years, while all alleged crimes were within Shivaji Nagar and Deonar Police Stations.
Respondent argued that the appellate authority considered the objection and found fast-moving transport justified the action.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under the Bombay Police Act must be non-arbitrary and not excessive; it cannot be more than the situation demands. Absent material justifying the extent and duration, the order is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Externment Order and the show-cause notice both referred to a number of previous criminal cases said to have been registered against the Petitioner. However, all of these are within the local limits of the Shivaji Nagar and the Deonar Police Stations.
We find this to be entirely unsatisfactory, and incorrect in law.
any order of the Externment must be non-arbitrary and cannot be excessive. It cannot be more than the situation demands.
Procedural History
On 11th March 2013, show-cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police. On 11th June 2013, Dy. Commissioner of Police passed externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b). Petitioner appealed; appeal dismissed on 28th August 2013 by Secretary (Spl), Home Department. Petitioner then filed writ petition under Article 226 on 19th October 2013, which was heard and allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 56(1)(a), Section 56(1)(b)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
