Bombay High Court
Arun Suryanath Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 July, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:18974-DB
1/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3554 OF 2019
Arun Suryanath Singh .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents
.......
• None present for Petitioner.
• Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 10th JULY, 2023
P.C. :
1. None appears for the Petitioner.
2. I have gone through record with the assistance of
learned APP.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated
05/12/2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan
Division, partly allowing his Appeal u/s 60 of the Maharashtra
Police Act.
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 21:30:54 :::
2/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
5. The Petitioner was externed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Vasai, vide his order dated 17/05/2018 outside the
limits of districts of Palghar, Thane, Mumbai suburban, Raigad,
Pune, Ratnagiri as well as from Mumbai City for a period of two
years from 17/05/2018. That externment order was modified by
the impugned Appellate order and the area of externment was
restricted to Palghar, Thane and Mumbai suburban Districts as
well as Mumbai City. The Petitioner has challenged that order in
this Petition.
6. The externment order was passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Vasai, mentioning that the Petitioner was served the
show cause notice before 07/09/2016. The externment order
mentions various dates from 07/09/2016 upto 12/03/2018
when the proceedings were kept before the Externing Authority.
Finally the order came to be passed on 17/05/2018. This itself is
an inordinate period for which the proceedings were kept
pending. For almost two years, the proceedings were not taken
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 21:30:54 :::
3/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
to their conclusion. Therefore, the urgency and necessity of
passing the externment order was lost.
7. The externment order mentions 9 cognizable offences
against the Petitioner registered at Virar, Nalasopara, Vasai, Valiv,
Tulinj and Arnala and police stations. The first six offences were
from the year 2009 upto 2016 and the last three offences were
registered in the year 2018. Thus, these three last offences could
not have been mentioned in the show cause notice issued prior to
September 2016. Therefore, the Petitioner was not given
sufficient opportunity to answer those allegations regarding those
offences registered after the show cause notice. This is another
ground on which the externment order is liable to be set aside.
8. The Petitioner was externed for a maximum period of
two years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak
Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra, as reported in 2022
SCC Online SC 99 has held that the Externing Authority has to
record proper subjective satisfaction for externing a person for a
maximum permissible period.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 21:30:54 :::
4/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment is relevant in
that context, which reads thus;
"17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent
that while passing an order under Section 56,
the competent authority must mention the area
or District or Districts in respect of which the
order has been made. Moreover, the competent
authority is required to specify the period for
which the restriction will remain in force. The
maximum period provided for is of two years.
Therefore, an application of mind on the part
of the competent authority is required for
deciding the duration of the restraint order
under Section 56. On the basis of objective
assessment of the material on record, the
authority has to record its subjective
satisfaction that the restriction should be
imposed for a specific period. When the
competent authority passes an order for the
maximum permissible period of two years, the
order of externment must disclose an
application of mind by the competent authority
and the order must record its subjective
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 21:30:54 :::
5/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
satisfaction about the necessity of passing an
order of externment for the maximum period
of two years which is based on material on
record. Careful perusal of the impugned order
of externment dated 15th December 2020
shows that it does not disclose any application
of mind on this aspect. It does not record the
subjective satisfaction of the respondent no.2
on the basis of material on record that the
order of externment should be for the
maximum period of two years. If the order of
externment for the maximum permissible
period of two years is passed without recording
subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity
of extending the order of externment to the
maximum permissible period, it will amount to
imposing unreasonable restrictions on the
fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d)
of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India."
9. These observations are squarely applicable to the
present case. There is no subjective satisfaction recorded by the
Externing Authority as to why the Petitioner was externed for a
maximum period of two years.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 21:30:54 :::
6/6 03-WP-3554-19.odt
10. Considering all these grounds, the Externment order is
liable to be set aside.
11. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 05/12/2018 passed by
Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, under
the Petitioner's Appeal is set aside in its entirety.
(iii) The order of externment dated 17/05/2018
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vasai,
against the Petitioner is set aside.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(v) The Petition is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
