S.S. Shinde, J.
This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 17th August, 2012 passed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.Ext.112 of 2012 as well as order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Region-2, Bhiwandi, District : Thane, in Case No.Externment/SR/97/2012, thereby externing the Petitioner from Thane District for a period of one year under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that from last several years he is working for Republican Party of India. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 by Report dated 8th August, 2011 informed the Respondent No.2 herein that, the movements and acts of the Petitioner are causing harm to the Society and the Petitioner has committed the offence under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said Report, the Respondent No.4 has requested the Respondent No.2 to issue externment order qua the Petitioner.
3. It is further case of the Petitioner that, the Respondent No.2 herein has taken the cognizance of the Report filed by the Respondent No.4 and on 12th January, 2012, issued show cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Petitioner was directed to remain present on 20th January, 2012 for furnishing his explanation to the show cause notice. The Petitioner, in pursuant to the show cause notice, appeared before the Respondent No.4 on 20th January, 2012 and filed detailed explanation along with documentary evidence. The Petitioner denied the allegations made in the show cause notice. It is stated in reply that, due to political rivalry, he has been implicated in the false cases and as a result of which, externment proceedings have been initiated against him. The Leader of an Opposition Party is instrumental in filing cases against him. It is the specific contention of the Petitioner that, the rival party wanted to keep away the Petitioner from General Elections of Corporation and, therefore, with political motive, the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the criminal cases and also in externment proceedings.
4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that there are only three criminal cases pending against him. Out of three pending cases, in two cases, the Complainant is party in the civil dispute. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the civil litigation between the Petitioner and the said Complainant is pending before the competent Civil Court.
5. It is further case of the Petitioner that, in spite of detailed reply filed to the show cause notice, the Respondent No.2 was pleased to pass the order of externment on 22nd March, 2012, externing the Petitioner from District Thane for the period of one year under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
6. Being aggrieved by the above-said order, the Petitioner filed Appeal No.Ext.112 of 2012 before the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. However, the said Appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this Writ Petition.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, the three criminal cases were lodged against the Petitioner, in the year 2009 and 2010, and in all three cases, the trial Court has granted bail to the Petitioner. It is submitted that, the Respondent No.2 committed an error in not appreciating the fact that, the impugned externment proceedings initiated against the Petitioner are highly politically motivated, and the same is nothing but curtailment of the Petitioner's fundamental rights. It is further submitted that the impugned order of externment of the Petitioner is highly excessive and based upon the criminal cases filed against the Petitioner in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. It is submitted that, thereafter, there is no any criminal case filed against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, the criminal complaints at Sr. Nos.1 and 2, which are mentioned in the show cause notice are filed by the neighbours of the Petitioner. It is submitted that, one civil dispute is filed by the Petitioner and his mother in the Civil Court against the Complainants in the aforesaid two complaints. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that, the alleged in-camera statements of two witnesses recorded by the Respondent-Authorities do not spell out the period for which activities of the Petitioner were prejudicial to the interest of the society. It is further submitted that, the show cause notice as well as order impugned in this Petition is silent about the dates on which alleged statements of two witnesses are recorded. It is further submitted that, so far as 3rd complaint is concerned, the Complainant himself has filed affidavit and informed the Police Officer that the Petitioner is wrongly implicated in the said case. In addition to oral submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also invited our attention to the contents of the reply to the show cause notice, and submitted that the impugned order of externment deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions, carefully perused the contents of the show cause notice, impugned orders, other material placed on record and original record made available for perusal and upon perusal of entire material on record, we are of the opinion that there is breach of principles of natural justice by the Respondent-Authorities before passing the externment order, in as much as, there is no mention in the show cause notice on which dates in-camera statements of the two persons were recorded and during which period alleged activities of the Petitioner which were harmful and prejudicial to the Society were carried on. It is also surprising to note that, though the statements of the two witnesses are recorded on 25th September, 2011 and on 24th September, 2011, as stated by the Respondent-Authorities, the same are verified by the Higher Authority on 7th December, 2011 and 18th November, 2011. It is also beyond comprehension to understand that, how the Higher Authority has verified the statements on different dates, which are recorded on 25th September, 2011 and 24th September, 2011 and that too after a gap of about two months from recording of the in-camera statements of those two witnesses.
9. An order of externment, externing the Petitioner from Thane District for one year is drastic in nature and, therefore, authorities were under obligation to follow the principles of natural justice scrupulously. However, on careful perusal of the show cause notice and also an order of externment, it is abundantly clear that, there is no mention of dates on which in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded. The show cause notice as well as order of externment is totally silent about the specific period of alleged prejudicial activities of the Petitioner, as stated by the two witnesses, whose statements in camera were recorded. The order passed by the Respondent No.2, which is confirmed by the Respondent No.4, makes reference of the statements of two witnesses recorded in camera, However, there are no specifications or details on which dates the said statements are given by those two witnesses and during which period the alleged activities of the Petitioner were in operation.
10. While dealing with the externment proceedings, Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 mandates that, before an order under Section 55 (56, 57 and 57A) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is passed against any person, the Officer acting under any of the said Sections or any Officer above the rank of an Inspector, authorized by that Officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. Therefore, it follows from the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 that while issuing show cause notice and before passing order of externment, it is necessary to inform the concerned person in writing about the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them.
11. This Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in the context of strict observance of the principles of natural justice in the case of Mrs. Marry Kutty Thomas Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1987 (2) Bom.C.R. 196. In the facts of that case, the Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that issuance of notice under Section 59, the provisions of the said Section are mandatory, notice must not only state the general nature of material allegation against the person concerned, but also the precise nature of action proposed to be taken against him. Yet, in another exposition, in case of Khudabax Devalsab Kamtikar Vs. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur and Ors., 1988 (1) Bom.C.R. 56, in paragraph 4, in the facts of that case and while interpreting provisions of Sections 56 and 59 in the context of observance of principles of natural justice, this Court held that the order of externemnt based on alleged activities during specified period, which was not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 59 and, therefore, the order of externment would be illegal.
The Gujarat High Court in the case of Santosh Ramprasad Sharma Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch and Anr., 1992 CRI.L.J. 3983, in the facts of that case observed that, unexplained delay of four months in passing the order after completion of proceedings vitiates the order.
A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kishor Rajaram Durge Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 481, in the facts of the said case, in paragraph 7 held as under :-
"7. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that the in-camera statement of witness 'A' was recorded which indicated that the witness has stated that the petitioner had assaulted the witness on a trifle reason, about one year ago, that about three months ago, the petitioner had demanded money from him and had threatened to beat him if the money was not paid. However, bare perusal of these statements would indicate that there is no mention as to the place, date, time etc. when the incident alleged to have occurred. There is also no mention of exact date, month and year. The mention is only about one year ago. Apart from this, there is no mention of any specific place, where these incidents occurred."
"As regards the in-camera statement of witness 'B', the witness has stated that the incident occurred about six months ago, when he was threatened by the petitioner to give money. Here again, there is no mention as to the place, date, time and month of the incident."
"Thus, it is clear that the in-camera statements of the two witnesses, which are mentioned in the show cause notice, are vague allegations, without giving any definite details as to the incident and thereby the petitioner was deprived of meeting out those allegations made against him."
12. Therefore, in the light of what is discussed here-in-above, in the facts of the present case, there is no strict observance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, for the reasons set out here-in-before, the impugned order of 17th August, 2012 passed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.Ext.112 of 2012 as well as impugned order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Respondent No.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Region-2, Bhiwandi, District : Thane, in Case No.Externment/SR/97/2012 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Petition is disposed of.