Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Satish Sagun Korgaonkar and Akbar Hussain Shafi Hussain, challenged externment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and confirmed by the appellate authority. The externment orders directed their removal from Greater Mumbai, Thane, and Raigad districts for two years. The petitioners contended that the notice under Section 59 of the Act was incomplete, as it did not contain the in-camera statements or a list of witnesses, depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to defend. They also argued that the externment was based on stale crimes registered in 2002-2003, while the notice was issued in 2012-2013, and that their replies and evidence were not considered by the authority. The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the notices were valid and the authorities had applied their mind. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the notices were indeed incomplete and that the authorities had not considered the petitioners' replies and evidence. The court held that the externment orders were unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 59 and non-application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the externment orders and allowed the petitions.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) and Section 59 - Notice - Incomplete Notice - The notice under Section 59 must contain all relevant material including in-camera statements and list of witnesses; failure to supply complete notice vitiates the proceedings. Held that the petitioner was served with an incomplete copy of the notice, which deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself (Paras 3-5). B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Stale Crimes - Externment cannot be based on crimes registered in 2002-2003 when the notice was issued in 2012-2013; there must be a live link between the alleged activities and the need for externment. Held that the authority relied on stale incidents without considering the petitioner's subsequent conduct (Paras 5-6). C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Non-Application of Mind - The externing authority must consider the reply and evidence filed by the petitioner; failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind. Held that the order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply and witnesses (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act are sustainable when the notice under Section 59 was incomplete and the authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply and evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the externment orders dated 5.9.2012 and the appellate orders dated 9.4.2013.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority
- notice under Section 59 must be complete and contain all relevant material
- stale crimes cannot form basis of externment
- authority must consider reply and evidence
- appellate authority must apply mind independently
