Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashraf Shamsher Ali Jagirdar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an externment order dated 4th April 2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, in Externment Appeal No. 01/2014. The petitioner was externed from three districts: Ahmednagar, Nashik, and Pune, under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner's counsel argued that the externment order was excessive because the alleged prejudicial activities, as per the show-cause notice, were confined to the Sangamner area in Ahmednagar district. The counsel submitted that without recording subjective satisfaction or reasons, the petitioner could not be externed from Nashik and Pune districts. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the order was in conformity with Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the material on record. The court, after perusing the original record, show-cause notice, and the impugned order, confined its consideration to the sole ground of excessiveness. The court found that the petitioner's alleged activities were limited to Sangamner in Ahmednagar district, yet the externment extended to two additional districts without any justification. The court held that the externment order was excessive and disproportionate, and quashed and set aside the order dated 4th April 2015. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Proportionality - Sections 56, 59 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The petitioner was externed from three districts (Ahmednagar, Nashik, Pune) while his alleged prejudicial activities were confined to Sangamner area in Ahmednagar district. The court held that the externment order was excessive and disproportionate, as the authority failed to record subjective satisfaction or reasons for extending the externment beyond the area of activities. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 can be sustained when it externs a person from three districts while the alleged prejudicial activities are confined to a single area within one district, without recording subjective satisfaction or reasons for the extended territorial extent.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4th April 2015 passed by Respondent No.2 in Externment Appeal No. 01/2014 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be proportionate to the area of alleged prejudicial activities
- Subjective satisfaction must be recorded for extending externment beyond the area of activities
- Sections 56 and 59 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 require reasons for territorial extent
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 44
Criminal Writ Petition No. 604 of 2015
S.S. Shinde, A.I.S. Cheema
Mr. Patel Khizer (for petitioner), Mr. B.L. Dhas (APP for respondents)
Ashraf S/o Shamsher Ali Jagirdar
The State of Maharashtra, Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sangamner Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an externment order.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the externment order dated 4th April 2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from three districts (Ahmednagar, Nashik, Pune) while his alleged prejudicial activities were confined to Sangamner area in Ahmednagar district, making the order excessive.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner passed an externment order, which was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner in Externment Appeal No. 01/2014 on 4th April 2015.
Issues
Whether the externment order is excessive and disproportionate when the alleged activities are confined to one area but the externment extends to three districts without recording subjective satisfaction or reasons.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the externment order is excessive as the alleged activities are confined to Sangamner in Ahmednagar district, yet the petitioner is externed from Nashik and Pune districts without any justification.
State's counsel argued that the order is in conformity with Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must be proportionate to the area of alleged prejudicial activities. Without recording subjective satisfaction or reasons, the authority cannot extend the externment beyond the area where the activities are alleged to have occurred. The order was excessive and disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments only to one ground that, without recording subjective satisfaction and reasons in the externment order, the petitioner is externed from three districts i.e. Ahmednagar, Nashik and Pune.
We have given careful consideration to the submissions... Since the Petition is confined only to the ground that, the externment order is excessive... we are confining our consideration to that ground.
In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4th April 2015 passed by Respondent No.2 in Externment Appeal No. 01/2014 is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner passed an externment order against the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, who dismissed the appeal on 4th April 2015. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56, 59
