Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharad s/o Vithalrao Munde, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) challenging an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parali (Vaijnath), under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner, an agriculturist and social worker, contended that the externment order was illegal, arbitrary, and based on non-existent material. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and police authorities, defended the order. The court examined the show cause notice and the impugned order and found that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and did not specify any concrete instances of harmful activities. The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority must be based on objective material, and in the absence of such material, the order could not be sustained. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the externment order, allowing the petition. The court also directed that the rule be made absolute and that the petition be disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Residence and Movement - Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of Constitution of India - Externment Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court held that the order was based on non-existent material and vague allegations, and thus violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e). The subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective material. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Order - The externment order was quashed as the show cause notice and the order itself did not specify any concrete instances of the petitioner's alleged harmful activities. The court found that the authority had not applied its mind to the material on record. (Paras 5-10) C) Administrative Law - Subjective Satisfaction - Requirement of Objective Material - The court reiterated that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority must be based on objective material and not on vague or non-existent allegations. The order was set aside for lack of such material. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner is legal and valid based on the material available on record.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parali (Vaijnath), under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 must be based on objective material and subjective satisfaction of the authority
- Vague and non-specific allegations cannot form the basis of an externment order
- Right to reside and move freely under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of Constitution of India cannot be curtailed without sufficient cause
