Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bapu alias Suhas Sopan Davange, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the externment order dated 8th August 2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, in Externment Appeal No.36/2016. The externment order was originally passed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shirdi, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of Ahmednagar district for a period of two years. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the externment order. The petitioner then approached the High Court contending that the order was passed without application of mind and without considering his explanation. The court examined the record and found that the Divisional Commissioner had not applied his mind to the material on record and had not considered the petitioner's explanation. The court observed that the order was passed mechanically, without subjective satisfaction. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order, and set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The court directed that the petitioner be released from the externment order forthwith.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order was quashed as the Divisional Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the material on record and did not consider the petitioner's explanation. The court held that the order was passed mechanically without subjective satisfaction, rendering it illegal. (Paras 5-7)
B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 56(1)(b) - The authority must provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing and consider the explanation of the proposed externee. In this case, the petitioner's explanation was not considered, and the order was passed without proper application of mind. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was legal and proper, and whether the authority applied its mind to the material on record.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order dated 8th August 2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shirdi. The petitioner was directed to be released from the externment order forthwith.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority
- Non-application of mind vitiates the order
- Opportunity of hearing must be meaningful
- Authority must consider explanation of the proposed externee
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 178
Criminal Writ Petition No.1035 of 2016
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. K.B. Borde for the Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Yada, APP for the Respondent/State
Bapu alias Suhas Sopan Davange
The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik; The Sub Divisional Police Officer Shirdi Division, Shirdi; The Sub Divisional Officer Shirdi Division, Shirdi
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(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the externment order dated 8th August 2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, and the order of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shirdi, directing his externment from Ahmednagar district for two years.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the externment order was passed without application of mind and without considering his explanation, and that the authority failed to record subjective satisfaction.
Previous Decisions
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shirdi, passed an externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing the petitioner to remove himself from Ahmednagar district for two years. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was passed with proper application of mind and subjective satisfaction.
Whether the authority considered the petitioner's explanation before passing the externment order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the externment order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without considering his explanation.
The respondent/State supported the order, contending that it was passed after due consideration of the material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority, which requires proper application of mind to the material on record and consideration of the explanation of the proposed externee. Failure to do so renders the order illegal and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is without application of mind and without considering the explanation of the petitioner.
The externment order is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shirdi, passed an externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, who dismissed the appeal on 8th August 2016. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: Section 56(1)(b)
