A.P. Bhangale, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and Heard by consent.
2. The petitioner seeks to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court questioning validity of the order dated 31-08-2012 in appeal no EXTâ2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra who dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner against the externment order dated 05-06-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone -2 Mumbai, whereby externing the Petitioner from the Districts of Brihan Mumbai (Greater Mumbai) Mumbai Police Commissioner Zone, Navi Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for period of one year with effect from the date the petitioner is externed.
3. It is case of the Petitioner that on 15-03-2012 the Petitioner was called by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gaondevi and was handed over an order dated 15-03-2012 and was directed to furnish surety. The Petitioner had furnished surety of Shri Anant Advilekar on the same day. The Petitioner was allowed to go. On 03-04-2012 the Petitioner had made written representation before the Asst, Commissioner of Police. On 25-04-2012 the Petitioner had received the notice no. 1123 of 2012 from the respondent no. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police directing him to appear on 26-04-2012 and thereafter the Petitioner was called on 09-05-2012. The Petitioner filed the written representation. The externment order no. 153 /C/43/2012 dated 05-06- 2012 at Gaondevi Police Station was issued by Shri Anil Kumbhare, Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone II , Mumbai to the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, whereby the Petitioner was directed to be externed from the Districts of Greater Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane, Raigad Districts for the period of one year with effect from the date the externment is put in to operation by externing the Petitioner. The said Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of externment on the ground that Crime no. 54 of 2012 was reported against the Petitioner at Gaondevi Police station under Section 354, 504, 506, 509 of the IPC in which the Petitioner was granted Bail. The decision making authority did not bother as to whether the Petitioner has misused or abused liberty enjoyed by him pursuant to the grant of bail order in favour of the Petitioner. The order was challenged in appeal before Secretary, Home Department Government of Maharashtra. The Appeal was rejected on 31-08-2012. It is case of the Petitioner that he is law abiding Citizen, resident of Gaondevi, Mumbai â 400 007.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sathyanarayanan argued that the impugned order of externment suffered from the vice of excessive restraint as the Petitioner was directed to be externed for one year from the vast areas of Mumbai, Thane Navi Mumbai and Raigad Districts without recording the reasons and findings as to why the Petitioner should be externed from such vast areas. Learned Advocate further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not enter in to merits of the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gaondevi and erroneous order was passed violating the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had no opportunity to meet the allegations made by the alleged witnesses.
5. Criminal cases against the Petitioner were listed in tabular form as under:-
1(A)
| Sr.No. | Police Station | Details of Crime. |
| 1 | Gaondevi | 147/2002 I.P.C. 325, r/w. 85(1)(2), Liquor Prohibition Act. |
| 2 | Gaondevi | 204/2006 I.P.C. 332, r/w. 85(1)(2), Liquor Prohibition Act. |
| 3 | Gaondevi | 297/2006 I.P.C. 332, 353 r/w. 85(1)(2), Liquor Prohibition Act. |
| 4 | Gaondevi | 311/2007 I.P.C. 504, 332, 506(2) |
| 5 | Gaondevi | 300/2011 I.P.C. 354, 509 |
| 6 | Gaondevi | 54/2012 I.P.C. 354, 504, 506, 509 |
| 7 | Gaondevi | 741/2006 112/117 of Bombay Police Act. |
| Sr.No. | Case no. | Section | Date |
| 1 | 682/04 | 504 of I.P.C. | 23/06/2004 |
| 2 | 838/04 | Civil | 31/07/2004 |
| 3 | 873/04 | 504, 506 of IPC. | 09/08/2004 |
| 4 | 894/04 | 323, 504 of IPC | 18/08/2004 |
| 5 | 877/05 | 323, 504 of IPC | 02/08/2005 |
| 6 | 902/05 | torturing | 19/08/2005 |
| 7 | 222/06 | 504, 506 of IPC | 20/02/2006 |
| 8 | 671/06 | 504 of IPC | 02/06/2006 |
| Sr.No. | Case no. | Section | Date | Police Station |
| 1 | 14/02 | 107 | 14/06/2002 | Gaondevi |
| 2 | 19/04 | 107 | 18/09/2004 | Gaondevi |
| 3 | 52/06 | 107 | 03/08/2006 | Gaondevi |
| 4 | Â | 110 | 16/05/2008 | Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2 |
6. Learned APP Shri K. V. Saste supported the externment action against the Petitioner on the ground that many criminal cases were reported against the Petitioner and the allegations against the Petitioner were serious as mentioned in the impugned order. According to him faster modes of transport and conveyance are available so as to enable the prospective offender to indulge in criminal acts in extensive areas therefore the authority concerned was justified to extern the externee from four Districts.
7. Let us now consider the relevant legal provision under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for initiation of externment proceeding.
â56. Removal of persons about to commit offence. Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which State Government may, by notification in the Official Gaulle, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI, or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property,
(bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential of the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-sect ion (1) of Sec. 3 of the Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (VII of 1980), or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or other wise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or such prejudicial act] or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction [or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto] by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the said area [or the area and such contiguous districts, or part thereof as the case may be] from which he was directed to remove himself.
56(1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extent the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abatement of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.â
As per the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act reproduced above, not only there should be prosecutions for the offences punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, but in addition the officer concerned should be of the opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the person against whom the externment proceedings have been started by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.
8. Similarly reliance can also been placed on the decision in the case of YashwantDamodar Patil v/s. Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and Anr. (1989 Mh.L.J), Page no.1111, in which it was observed as under:-
âThe fact that the proposed externee is engaged or is about to be engaged in one or the other type of activity or movements as mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act is not sufficient by itself to warrant an order of externment. That fact coupled with the opinion formed by the designated officer that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public for the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act will provide a proper basis for the exercise of the power of externment under the provisions of the Act.â
âWe have already, after examining the provisions of section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, held that in every case of acts involved on the part of the proposed externee, where an order of externment is proposed to be passed, it is necessary that the officer concerned must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him. Notice of such satisfaction must also necessarily be given to the proposed externee under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the present case, though notice of the fact that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the proposed externee has been given in so far as the ground mentioned in the first part of clause (b) of section 56(1) is concerned, no such notice has been given in so far as the ground mentioned in the second part of section 56(1)(b) is concerned. In other words, when the authority proceeded to give notice to the proposed externee on the ground that he is engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, he failed to mention also that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him.â
9. It is obvious that to pass externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b), the Police Commissioner or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, must record his satisfaction that:-
(i) The acts of the person are causing or calculated to cause willful danger or harm to the person or property or that there are reasonable grounds that he is engaged or about to be engage in the commission of an offences under Chapters XVI and XVII IPC. and
(ii) In the opinion of the officer, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence and unless such an opinion is formed by the officer, he cannot pass the order for externment of the person.
In the impugned order of externment passed under Section 56(1)(b), there is no satisfaction recorded that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner. In absence of such satisfaction being recorded, the order of externment is vitiated.
10. In our view Provisions of Section 56 are enacted by way of societal protection providing for an ultimate essential step of externment to be used very sparingly only when larger public interest so demands. e.g. when there is need to prevent someone who has indulged in reign of terror in the area/areas creating fear in the mind of citizen residing in the areas by his continuing criminal activity. However it must be borne in mind that such extraordinary step is to be rarely taken as the provisions makes serious inroads in to personal liberty and therefore are to be strictly complied with. The order of externment must indicate that it is exceptional measure required to be adopted by the competent authority concerned only when the movements or acts of subject-noticee person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and it is really essential to extern the noticee from certain areas after he has failed to show cause as to why he should not be externed as preventive measure.
11. In our view the right to personal liberty guaranteed under the article 21 of the constitution of India is sacrosanct and there must be compelling necessity to extern the subject-noticee in such case from the areas concerned.(Four Districts named as Mumbai main, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Raigad in the present case) The externment may have adverse effect to cause loss of livelihood or economic death of the subject-noticee who is externed as also may seriously affect his family members dependent upon him.
12. The externment is meant to prevent criminal activities i.e. commission of serious offences from being repeated by the known offender or one who is prone to commit offences or a known convict who may repeat offences posing danger to maintenance of law and order in the area concerned. The rule of fairplay and justice require that prior to the order of externment the noticee must get real opportunity to know and answer the grounds on the basis of which show-cause notice is issued and duly served upon proposed externee. The competent authority concerned is expected to apply its mind and record its subjective satisfaction by considering the material before it objectively and must record reasons to believe that the subject is likely to engage himself in criminal activities similar to one for which he was convicted in the past. The competent decision making authority must indicate in the order that it has borne in mind the propensity of the prospective offender, gravity and magnitude of the crimes in which notice may engage himself in the area or areas from which he is required to be externed, looking in to instances and nature of his past criminal activities. Furthermore it must be noted that the subject-noticee in the externment proceeding have no opportunity cross-examine witnesses like a full-fledged criminal trial because of need to maintain secrecy of identity of witnesses who otherwise due to fear, may not come forward to give statement against the proposed externee but the subject-noticee in the externment proceedings is entitled to the observance of the principles of fairplay and natural justice on the part of decision making authority and ought to be given reasonable opportunity to answer or defend himself qua the allegations made against him.
13. The noticee cannot be awarded a bolt from the blue in the form of externment order based upon the undisclosed, superfluous and irrelevant material other than that which was indicated in the show cause notice. If in given case witnesses are not coming forward due to fear to give their deposition against the proposed externee and statements of such witnesses have to be recorded in camera, then statements of such witnesses without disclosure of identity of such witnesses by deleting the portion in the statement tending to disclose their identity, may be furnished to the proposed externee for the purpose to enable him answer or understand the allegations/accusations leveled against him. In defence the proposed externee may give his written statement and/or examine witness or witnesses and produce documentary evidence if any to oppose externment order as proposed. The externment order if passed thereafter must also indicate the application of mind to the material made available to the authority concerned that is empowered to pass the externment order.
14. We find that the impugned externment action was defective as the record did not indicate any adequate tangible material to justify the stringent externment action to extern the Petitioner from the multiple number of Districts; merely on the ground that in modern times there are faster modes of transport and communication. The initiation of externment proceedings requires the issuance of the show cause notice from the same decision-making authority which passed the externment order. Record does not show that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner to meet the accusations leveled against him.
15. The proceedings must clearly indicate so as to specify the unlawful activities which were committed by the Petitioner and whether real opportunity of hearing was granted to him. To wit:-
Whether the Petitioner was communicated with the copy of the material produced or allegations relied against him so as to allow him reasonable time to meet the allegations. No such opportunity appears to have been given in the present case. The externment action suffered from the vice of procedural impropriety. The externment action being a drastic step ought to be adopted cautiously and carefully with due regard to the principles of natural justice. Externment order cannot be an excessive restraint so as to operate in multiple numbers of Districts in the manner outrageously disproportionate to offences or criminal acts alleged against the Petitioner.
16. In the present case the list of cases against the Petitioner indicate that on two occasions he was convicted for contravening Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In one case in the year 2002 he was admonished and released and in another case in the year 2006 he was sentenced 15 days of imprisonment and fine in the sum of Rs 1000/- in the Court of the 40th Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Girgaon and third case in the year 2007 the same court had convicted him for offence under Section 504, 506(2) and Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted in the year 2007 in Criminal Case no 311 of 2007 in the same Court. These entire instances were limited to the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court of 40th Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Girgaon, Mumbai and no other area. Means have to justify the end. Merely because faster modes of transport are available the Petitioner cannot be externed from the vast and multiple District areas.
17. We do not find rational correlation between the areas from which subject is to be externed and the nature of apprehended criminal activities in the present case. Such rational correlation must be established before the decision making authority concerned, otherwise the action to extern the Petitioner from the vast and extensive areas including the areas in which no criminal cases were reported at all against the Petitioner has to be branded as arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and excessive restraint upon the personal liberty guaranteed in favor of the Petitioner in view of Art 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the Petitioner he has recently lost his Father and aged and ailing Mother is dependent upon him for livelihood. The nature of cases listed against him assuming his involvement in them were not grave enough to take resort to the drastic step of externing him from the vast areas of four Districts (Greater Mumbai, Thane, Raigad , Navi Mumbai ) in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the result we find the impugned externment hard to defend as it is resting on weak grounds in the absence of tangible material with adequate gravity and that being so; we are constrained to allow this Petition to quash and set aside the impugned orders in externment proceedings.
18. The order dismissing the appeal no. EXTâ2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra dated 31.08.2012 and externment order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. Hence, order:-
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition.