Bombay High Court
Ratnapal @ Ratnadeep @ Kalu Hemraj Mate vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 23 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:4374
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.994 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Ratnapal @ Ratnadeep @ Kalu Hemraj
Mate,
Age 44 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Near
Jagnade Nagar, Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 State of Maharashtra,
through its Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara.
2 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr R. R. Vyas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr N. R. Rode, APP for Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : 23rd APRIL, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
05.04.2024 passed in Externment Case No.1543 of 2024 by the
Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, thereby externing the petitioner from
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
Bhandara District for two years. The petitioner also challenges the
order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur, thereby dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner against the order of externment passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Bhandara.
3. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 59
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as, "the
Act of 1951") as to why he should not be externed from Bhandara
District. Subsequently, by impugned order dated 05.04.2024, the
petitioner was externed from Bhandara District for a period of two
years.
4. The petitioner challenged the said order before the
Appellate Authority by preferring an appeal under Section 60 of the
Act of 1951. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate
Authority by its order dated 14.11.2024.
5. Though various grounds are raised in this petition, the
principle ground pressed in the argument is that without recording
reason, an externment order for the maximum period of two years is
passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
order of externment stands vitiated since no reason has been
mentioned as to why the petitioner has been externed from
Bhandara District for a period of two years. According to him, it is
necessary that there should be application of mind on the part of the
Competent Authority for deciding the duration of the externment
under Section 55 of the Act, 1951, but no subjective satisfaction has
been recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara as to why
the petitioner should be externed for a maximum period of two
years. This shows the non application of mind on the part of the
Authority. To buttress his submission he seeks to rely on the case of
Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para 13 has observed as under :
"13. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus :
"58. Period of operation of orders under Sections 55, 56, 57 and
57A- A direction made under Sections 55, 56, 57 and 57A not to
enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or
any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as
the case may be, shall be for such period as may be specified therein
and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on
which the person removes himself or is removed from the area,
District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or
areas as the case may be".
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
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
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 tow years, the order of externment must disclose an
application of mind by the competent authority and the order must
record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an
order of exernment 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."
6. Per contra, Mr. N. R. Rode, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondents/State submitted that the various offences
are registered against the petitioner and members of the group,
therefore, the Competent Authority is justified in externing the
petitioner for maximum period. The petition is devoid of merit,
hence, it be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and having gone through the orders
impugned, it transpires that the Competent Authority issued a show
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
cause notice to the petitioner giving details of the crimes, wherein
petitioner alongwith other group members including the head are
alleged to be involved in the crime and also sought an explanation
from petitioner and other members of the group as to why an
externment order should not be passed. The petitioner replied.
Finding no plausible explanation, the Competent Authority passed
the order of externment. Perusal of the record produced by the
learned A.P.P. reveals that all the three crimes mentioned in the
notice issued to the petitioner which have been relied by the
Competent Authority in the impugned order were informed to the
petitioner. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner is not
sustainable.
8. So far as the next ground of non-recording of subjective
satisfaction by the Competent Authority for externing the petitioner
for two years is concerned, in view of the provisions of the Act of
1951 particularly, Section 58 of the Act of 1951, it is incumbent on
the part of the Competent Authority for deciding the duration of
restraint under Section 55 of the Act of 1951 to record subjective
satisfaction on the objective assessment of the period for which
externment order is to be passed. The impugned order nowhere
J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt
depicts fulfillment of this essential condition of subjective
satisfaction with regard to the period of externment. Thus, no
reason is mentioned as to why the petitioner was externed for the
maximum period provided under Section 55 of the Act of 1951.
The petitioner has already suffered externment for one year. As held
in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra), if no subjective
satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority, it would
amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental
right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is allowed.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
05.04.2024 passed in Externment Case No.1543 of 2024 by the
Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, under Section 56 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, is also quashed and set
aside.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Tambe
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/05/2025 18:03:04
