Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Zumbar s/o Goroba Kadam, a 68-year-old labourer from Alani, Osmanabad, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging two externment orders passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The first order dated 07/10/2016 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, and the second order dated 28/12/2016 was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in proceeding No. 2016/SAPR/EXTERNMENT/CR127. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders. The core legal issue was whether the externment order under Section 56(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 could be sustained when the externing authority failed to record subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to cause injury, danger, or harm to the public. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without proper application of mind and without recording the requisite satisfaction. The State, represented by the APP, defended the orders. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the provisions of Section 56(b) and noted that the power to extern is drastic and must be exercised with caution. The court found that the impugned orders merely referred to registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code but did not contain any finding or satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to cause injury, danger, or harm to the public. The court held that such mechanical exercise of power renders the orders illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed both orders, and directed that the petitioner be released from any restraint imposed by those orders. Rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externing authority must record subjective satisfaction that the person is likely to cause injury, danger, or harm to the public; mere registration of offences under IPC is not sufficient to invoke Section 56(b) - Held that the order passed without such satisfaction is illegal and liable to be quashed (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Procedural Compliance - Section 56(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The authority must consider the nature of offences and likelihood of future harm; failure to do so vitiates the order - Held that the impugned orders dated 07/10/2016 and 28/12/2016 are quashed and set aside (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner is sustainable in law when the externing authority did not record subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to cause injury, danger, or harm to the public
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07/10/2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Osmanabad and dated 28/12/2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction of the externing authority that the person is likely to cause injury
- danger
- or harm to the public
- mere registration of offences under IPC is insufficient
- failure to record satisfaction renders order illegal
