Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench heard three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioners, Sayeed Firoz, Ramiz @ Raja Ansar Ahmed Patel, and Shaikh Rahim @ Hunga, were externed from Amravati city and rural limits for two years by the respective Deputy Commissioners of Police. The appeals against these orders were dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioners contended that the show cause notices issued to them did not specify the period of proposed externment, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to make an effective representation. They also argued that the authorities failed to consider whether any less drastic alternative was available before ordering externment. The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the orders were valid. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the show cause notices were defective as they did not mention the period of externment, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The court also noted that the authorities did not consider less drastic alternatives. Consequently, the court quashed the externment orders and set aside the appellate orders, allowing the petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Procedural Safeguards - Show cause notice must specify the period of proposed externment to enable the proposed externee to make an effective representation - Failure to do so vitiates the order (Paras 5-6).
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Less Drastic Alternatives - The authority must consider whether any less drastic alternative is available before passing an externment order - Non-consideration renders the order unsustainable (Paras 5-6).
C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Appeal - Dismissal of appeal without considering procedural defects does not cure the illegality of the original order (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 are sustainable when the show cause notices did not specify the period of proposed externment and the authority failed to consider less drastic alternatives.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the externment orders, and set aside the appellate orders.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act
- 1951 must specify period of proposed externment in show cause notice
- Authority must consider less drastic alternatives before ordering externment
- Non-compliance with procedural safeguards renders externment order illegal
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 115
Criminal Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, Criminal Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, Criminal Writ Petition No.693 of 2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, V.M. Deshpande
H.S. Chitaley, V.A. Thakare, R.J. Shinde, R.S. Nayak, P.V. Navlani, S.M. Ukey
Sayeed Firoz s/o Sayeed Noor, Ramiz @ Raja Ansar Ahmed Patel, Shaikh Rahim @ Hunga s/o Sk. Ahmad
The State of Maharashtra, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Inspector, Divisional Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Police Station Officer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment orders and appellate orders.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were externed from Amravati city and rural limits for two years without proper show cause notice and without consideration of less drastic alternatives.
Previous Decisions
The externment orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and the appeals were dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner.
Issues
Whether the show cause notice must specify the period of proposed externment under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Whether the authority must consider less drastic alternatives before passing an externment order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that show cause notices did not specify the period of proposed externment, violating procedural safeguards.
Petitioners argued that the authority failed to consider less drastic alternatives.
State argued that the orders were valid and the appeals were correctly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the show cause notice must specify the period of proposed externment to enable the proposed externee to make an effective representation. Additionally, the authority must consider whether any less drastic alternative is available before ordering externment. Non-compliance with these procedural requirements renders the externment order illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
In all these matters, the orders of externment passed by the respective Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Nagpur, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, are in question.
The show cause notice did not specify the period of proposed externment.
The authority did not consider whether any less drastic alternative was available.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed externment orders under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioners appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeals. The petitioners then filed criminal writ petitions before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(b)
