Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish S/o Bhimrao Dolse, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an externment order dated 2nd August 2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalna (Respondent No.2) under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the subsequent order dated 18th November 2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (Respondent No.3) dismissing his appeal. The background facts reveal that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioner alleging that his activities were harmful to the community and passed the externment order directing him to remove himself from the area. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court contending that the externment order was illegal as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not record satisfaction that other measures were inadequate to prevent the alleged harmful activities. The court considered the legal issue whether the externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not record satisfaction that other measures were inadequate. The petitioner argued that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind, while the State respondents supported the order. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 56 and held that the recording of satisfaction that other measures are inadequate is a mandatory prerequisite before passing an externment order. The court found that the impugned order did not contain any such satisfaction, rendering it illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the externment order dated 2nd August 2016 and the appellate order dated 18th November 2016, and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh if so advised, in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Requirement of Recording Satisfaction - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an externment order against the petitioner without recording satisfaction that other measures were inadequate to prevent the alleged harmful activities. The court held that such satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 56, and failure to record it renders the order illegal. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Appeal - Section 60 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Appellate Authority's Duty - The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal without properly considering the mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction. The court held that the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, and the order of dismissal was also set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not record satisfaction that other measures were inadequate.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd August 2016 passed by Respondent No.2 and the order dated 18th November 2016 passed by Respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are at liberty to consider the matter afresh if so advised, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction that less restrictive measures are inadequate
- Failure to consider alternative measures renders externment order illegal
- Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act requires recording of satisfaction before passing externment order
