Case Note & Summary
The three petitioners, all brothers, challenged the externment orders passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, externing them from Ahmednagar District for one year under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which were confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The externment was based on allegations that the petitioners operated as a gang and their activities caused fear among the public. Initially, notices were issued under Section 56(1)(a)(b) on 21 June 2017. Later, on 4 September 2017, fresh notices under Section 55 were issued. The petitioners submitted explanations, but on 2 January 2018, the Superintendent of Police passed the externment order. Appeals to the Divisional Commissioner were dismissed on 28 March 2018, leading to the writ petitions. The petitioners argued that the orders were perverse, arbitrary, and politically motivated; only one crime (No. 164/2015) involved all three, and they were acquitted; old offences from 2008–2011 were relied upon without live link; no subjective satisfaction of gang formation was recorded; and the action was selective as the alleged gang included five to six persons but only the petitioners were externed. The respondents contended that due process under Section 55 was followed and the petitioners posed a threat. The High Court found merit in the petitioners' challenges. It noted that issuing notices under two different provisions in the same proceeding indicated non-application of mind. The court emphasized that Section 55 requires externment of all gang members, not selective action. The authorities failed to record subjective satisfaction that the petitioners formed a gang and committed offences. There was no live link with old, acquitted cases. The only joint crime resulted in acquittal before the appellate order. Relying on Vijay Lalso Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and other precedents, the court held that the orders were illegal. Consequently, the externment orders were quashed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Externment - Gang Externment under Section 55 - Requirement of Collective Action - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 55 - The court held that Section 55 contemplates collective action against the entire gang or body of persons; any externment order must be directed against all members. Selectively externing only some members while alleging a larger gang vitiates the order. The authorities committed an illegality by externment only the petitioners from an alleged gang of five to six persons. Held that the orders could not be sustained. (Paras 13-14) B) Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Need to Record Finding of Gang Formation - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 55 - The court emphasized that the competent authority and the appellate authority must record subjective satisfaction that the persons concerned had formed a gang and thereafter committed offences. The failure to record such satisfaction in the impugned orders renders the externment legally flawed. (Paras 12-13) C) Externment - Live Link - Stale Offences and Effect of Acquittal - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 55 - The court found no live link between the old offences (registered in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) and the externment proceedings initiated in 2017. Additionally, the only joint offence (Crime No.164/2015) resulted in acquittal of all accused, including the petitioners, before the appellate order was passed. Reliance on such stale and acquitted cases is impermissible. (Paras 11-12) D) Externment - Procedural Irregularity - Non-application of Mind - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 55, 56(1)(a)(b) - Issuance of notices under two different provisions (Section 56(1)(a)(b) and Section 55) in the same externment proceeding demonstrated a complete non-application of mind by the authorities. This inconsistency alone was sufficient to quash the impugned orders. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 were legally sustainable given the procedural irregularities and lack of evidence of gang activities
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the externment orders passed by Respondent No.2 and confirmed by Respondent No.3, holding that the authorities failed to apply their mind, did not record subjective satisfaction of gang formation, lacked live link, and resorted to selective action. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause B of the petitions.
Law Points
- Externment under Section 55 requires collective action against all gang members
- selective action is illegal
- subjective satisfaction of gang formation must be recorded
- live link between offences and proceedings is essential
- reliance on stale and acquitted cases invalid
- issuing multiple notices under different provisions shows non-application of mind
