Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay @ Tyson s/o Namdeorao Dongre, challenged an externment order dated 17.4.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, externing him from Nagpur City and adjoining rural areas for two years. The notice under Section 59 of the Act cited pendency of offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner submitted a reply denying any activities warranting externment, but the Deputy Commissioner recorded witness statements and passed the order. The petitioner argued that Section 56(1)(bb) could only be invoked if the authority had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities as defined in the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The court found that the alleged offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act did not fall within the ambit of Section 56(1)(bb). The court held that the externment order was passed under a provision that was not applicable to the facts of the case, and therefore quashed the order. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(bb) - Applicability - The provision under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be invoked only if the authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Mere pendency of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 does not attract this provision. (Paras 4-5)
B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(bb) - Misapplication - The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) without any material to show that the petitioner's acts were prejudicial to public order or essential supplies. The order was based on offences that do not fall within the ambit of the provision. Held that the order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of externment passed under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner was valid when the alleged offences were under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and not related to acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order or essential supplies as defined in the relevant Acts
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment dated 17.4.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires reasonable grounds to believe that the person acted in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order as defined in Maharashtra Prevention of Communal
- Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act
- 1980
- or prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act
- mere pendency of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- 1949 does not attract Section 56(1)(bb)
- externment order cannot be passed under a provision that is not applicable to the facts of the case
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 166
Criminal Writ Petition No.541 of 2017
Smt. Vasanti A Naik, M.G. Giratkar
Mr. Karmarkar for Petitioner, Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State
Vijay @ Tyson s/o Namdeorao Dongre
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Nagpur City Police, Nagpur, The Police Station Officer, Kamptee, Nagpur City
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)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 17.4.2017 externing the petitioner from Nagpur City and adjoining rural areas for two years
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the externment order was passed under a provision that was not applicable to the facts of the case, as the alleged offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act did not relate to acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order or essential supplies
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order after issuing a notice under Section 59 of the Act and recording statements of witnesses
Issues
Whether the order of externment under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was valid when the alleged offences were under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and not related to acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order or essential supplies as defined in the relevant Acts
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that Section 56(1)(bb) could only be invoked if the authority had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The alleged offences did not fall within this ambit.
The respondent/State did not make any specific submissions as the court found the petition meritorious.
Ratio Decidendi
The externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be passed only if the authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Mere pendency of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act does not attract this provision, and the order is liable to be quashed if passed under a provision that is not applicable.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Nagpur, dt.17.4.2017 under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from Nagpur City and the adjoining rural areas for two years.
It is stated that the order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act could have been passed only if the Deputy Police Commissioner had a reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner had acted in any manner that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980.
The provisions of Section 56(1)(bb) could have been invoked by the Deputy Police Commissioner if the actions on the part of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the communities as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
In the circumstances, the order of externment could not have been passed against the petitioner under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act.
Procedural History
A notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was served on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed under Section 56 of the Act. The petitioner submitted a reply. The Deputy Commissioner of Police recorded statements of witnesses and passed the externment order dated 17.4.2017 under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act, externing the petitioner from Nagpur City and adjoining rural areas for two years. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.541 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(bb), 59
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949: 65(e)
- Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980:
- Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980:
