Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aslam s/o Shabbir Shaikh @ Bunty Jahagirdar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The externment order directed the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of Ahmednagar district for a period of two years. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued to him did not specify the particulars of the incidents alleged against him, and that the externing authority failed to consider less restrictive measures before passing the order. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and police authorities, defended the order, arguing that the petitioner was involved in 11 offences and that his activities were detrimental to public order. The court examined the show cause notice and found that it merely stated that the petitioner was involved in 11 offences without providing details such as dates, places, or nature of the offences. The court held that such a vague notice deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The court further held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority must be based on objective material and that the authority should have considered less restrictive measures such as binding over the petitioner under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also noted that externment cannot be ordered solely on the basis of pending cases without conviction. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Show Cause Notice - The show cause notice must specify the particulars of the incidents alleged against the proposed externee to enable him to effectively reply. In this case, the notice merely stated that the petitioner was involved in 11 offences without giving details of dates, places, or nature of offences. Held that such vague notice vitiates the externment proceedings (Paras 8-10). B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The subjective satisfaction of the externing authority must be based on objective material and not on mere allegations. The authority must consider the possibility of taking less restrictive measures such as binding over the person under Section 110 of CrPC before ordering externment. In this case, the authority did not consider such measures. Held that the externment order is unsustainable (Paras 11-13). C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Vague Allegations - Externment cannot be ordered solely on the basis of pending cases without conviction. The authority must assess the likelihood of future harmful activities based on credible material. Here, the allegations were vague and the externment order was based on non-application of mind. Held that the order is liable to be quashed (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner is sustainable in law when the show cause notice did not specify the particulars of the incidents and the authorities failed to consider less restrictive measures.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific and credible material
- not vague allegations
- show cause notice must specify particulars of incidents
- authorities must consider less restrictive measures before ordering externment
- subjective satisfaction must be based on objective material
- externment cannot be ordered solely on basis of pending cases without conviction.
