Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rohit s/o Ramesh Nalawade, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the final order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad, whereby the petitioner was externed from the area of Jalna district for a period of two years under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner contended that he was running a business named Om Sai Enterprise and a xerox shop in Jalna and that the externment order was passed without any material on record to show that he was a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner argued that the in-camera statements relied upon by the authorities were not verified and that the subjective satisfaction of the authority was not based on credible material. The State, represented by the APP, opposed the petition and submitted that the order was passed after following due procedure and that the petitioner was involved in criminal activities. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the externment order was not sustainable in law. The Court observed that the material on record did not justify the conclusion that the petitioner was a 'dangerous person' and that the authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case. The Court also noted that the in-camera statements were not properly verified and that the authority did not record satisfaction that the witnesses were unwilling to depose in public. The Court further held that the externment order affected the petitioner's right to livelihood and was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the externment order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The order of externment must be based on credible material and the authority must apply its mind to the facts of the case. In the present case, the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and the material on record did not justify the conclusion that the petitioner was a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 56(1)(b). (Paras 1-10) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - In-camera Statements - Section 56(1)(b) - The in-camera statements recorded by the police must be verified and the authority must be satisfied that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose in public. In the instant case, the in-camera statements were not properly verified and the authority did not record satisfaction that the witnesses were unwilling to depose in public. (Paras 5-8) C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Right to Livelihood - Section 56(1)(b) - The externment order affects the right to livelihood of the petitioner. The authority must consider the impact of the order on the petitioner's livelihood and must pass a proportionate order. In this case, the order was disproportionate and the petitioner's right to livelihood was not considered. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is sustainable in law when the subjective satisfaction of the authority is not based on credible material and the petitioner's right to livelihood is affected.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the externment order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
Law Points
- Externment order
- Subjective satisfaction
- Dangerous person
- Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951
- In-camera statements
- Right to livelihood
- Proportionality
