Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi Division, under Sections 56 and 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The original order dated 09.02.2018 externed the petitioner from the entire Ahmednagar district and some portions of Nashik and Aurangabad districts for two years. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, who modified the order on 18.08.2018 by reducing the period to one year but retained the area of externment. The case arose from several offences registered against the petitioner at Kopargaon Police Station in Ahmednagar district, and the show-cause notice mentioned alleged prejudicial activities confined to Kopargaon Taluka. The petitioner contended that the externment order was excessive and violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, as the activities were limited to one taluka but the order extended to three districts without any recorded subjective satisfaction or reasons. The State argued that the order was justified under the provisions of the Act and that the entire order should not be struck down merely because the area was wider than necessary. The High Court examined the original record and found that the externing authority had not provided any reasons or recorded satisfaction for extending the externment beyond Kopargaon Taluka. Relying on settled law, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar and Bombay High Court decisions in Balu Shivling Dombe, Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad, and others, the Court held that an externment order must be proportionate to the area of activities and that any excessive order is arbitrary and illegal. The Court also relied on Umar Mohamed Malbari to hold that in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, it cannot modify the order but must quash it entirely if it is excessive. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2018 and 18.08.2018 were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Excessive Externment - Proportionality - Sections 56, 59 - The externment order must be commensurate with the area where the prejudicial activities occurred. Externing the petitioner from entire Ahmednagar district and portions of Nashik and Aurangabad when activities were confined to Kopargaon Taluka was excessive and illegal. Held: The order violated the principle of proportionality, relying on Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police (1973 Mh.L.J. 413) and Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur (1969 Mh.L.J. 387). (Paras 6-8) B) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Sections 56, 59 - The externing authority must record subjective satisfaction and reasons for extending externment beyond the immediate locality. The impugned orders contained no discussion justifying externment from three districts. Held: The absence of such satisfaction rendered the order bad. (Paras 6-7) C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Writ of Certiorari - Scope - Article 226, Constitution of India - When an externment order is excessive, the High Court can only quash it, not modify the areas of externment. Relying on Umar Mohamed Malbari Vs. K.P. Gaikwad (1988 Mh.L.J. 1034), the Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction stops at quashing the order passed in excess of jurisdiction. (Paras 9-10) D) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Appeal - Appellate Authority - Duty to Consider Excessiveness - Sections 56, 59 - The appellate authority modified the period but failed to address the excessive area. Held: The appellate order suffered from the same defect and was also quashed. (Paras 6, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order covering three districts was excessive and without recorded subjective satisfaction when the alleged prejudicial activities were confined to Kopargaon Taluka, Ahmednagar district
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The externment order dated 09.02.2018 and the appellate order dated 18.08.2018 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction and reasons
- Area of externment must be proportional to the area of prejudicial activities
- Excessive order violates personal liberty
- High Court cannot modify excessive externment order but can only quash it
- Appellate authority must consider confinement of activities
