Bombay High Court
Shyam Narayan Alladiwar vs Divisional Commissoner And Others on 21 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8276
1 wp413.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 413 OF 2025
PETITIONER Shyam s/ Narayan Alladiwar,
Aged 39 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o Ward No.5 Kelvad, Taluka - Saoner,
District Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS 1. Divisional Commissioner (Revenue),
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Saoner, District Nagpur.
3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Saoner, District Nagpur.
4. State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., Kelvad, Tah. Saoner,
District Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahesh Rai, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Anant Ghongare, APP for respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE OF RESERVED : 31/07/2025
DATE OF DECISION : 21/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
rkn
2 wp413.2025.odt
2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
externment proceedings order dated 10/03/2025 by Deputy
Commissioner Saoner in externment proceedings No. 36/2024 and
confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur dated
08/04/2025, externing the petitioner from Nagpur District for a
period of two months under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951, on the ground of violation of the principle of
natural justice and extending his jurisdiction as vested under the
provision of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. It is
the contention of the petitioner that the said action affected the
fundamental rights of the petitioner to move freely throughout the
territory of India as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India.
4. The proposal to extern the petitioner was initiated at
the instance of the Police Inspector of Saoner Police Station,
District Nagpur, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951. Accordingly, a notice dated 05/02/2025 came to be issued
rkn
3 wp413.2025.odt
under Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951,
an opportunity was given to the petitioner to reply to the same
before the Assistant Police Inspector, Saoner Police Station, District
Nagpur. After considering the record, six offences are registered
against the petitioner, and preventive action is also taken. The
concerned authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, passed
the externment order, which was confirmed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, in fact, the offences which are registered against
the present applicant does not covered under Chapters XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The crimes are registered against
the present applicant under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act. The three offences are registered against the
present applicant, which are covered under Chapter-XVI of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), but there is no material on record to
show that the action taken against the present petitioner is
inadequate, and therefore, the order passed by the authority is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said petition by
rkn
4 wp413.2025.odt
filing the reply, and it is submitted that the proposal was sent to
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rural Nagpur, by the Police
Inspector for inquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police
Act. After receiving the inquiry report, the report was submitted,
and after going through the report, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Rural Nagpur, issued the notice to the petitioner. The
petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his reply. After
perusal of the report, it is cleared that the petitioner was involved
in the illegal activities, which creates fear in the mind of the
public, and the petitioner used to give threats to the public in the
vicinity, which shows the criminal nature of the petitioner. Due to
this fear, no witness is coming forward to lodge a report against
the petitioner, and therefore, the action taken externing him is
legal, and no interference is called for.
7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record,
it reveals that the proposal was sent by the Superintendent of
Police, Rural Nagpur, to extern the petitioner from Nagpur District.
Accordingly, the notice was issued to the petitioner on 05/02/2025
under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, to
the petitioner, which was replied by him. The order passed by the
rkn
5 wp413.2025.odt
authority shows that in all six offences are registered against the
present petitioner. Out of that, three offences are registered under
Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and three
offences are registered under Sections 452, 506 read with 34 of
IPC, as far as Crime No. 62 of 2003 is concerned. Crime No. 76 of
2016 was registered under Sections 448 and 427 read with Section
34 of the IPC, and Crime No. 267 of 2024 was registered under
Sections 324, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Out of
which, the petitioner is acquitted from the offence registered
under the Crime No. 78 of 2016. Thus, now three offences are
registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and the two
offences registered under the provision of the Indian Penal Code
are pending.
8. On perusal of the order passed by the authority, which
shows that the petitioner is involved in transporting the liquor. It is
alleged that the present petitioner is also involved in crimes, which
are covered under Chapter-XVI of the IPC. As far as the
observations is that no witnesses are coming forward to depose
against the present petitioner. No specific instances or the names
of the witnesses are mentioned in the order. The general
rkn
6 wp413.2025.odt
allegations appeared to be levelled that such types of complaints
are received against the present petitioner. There is no reference
regarding how many complaints are received from the public as to
the conduct of the present petitioner. As far as the order of
externment, by its very nature, its extraordinary. It has the effect of
force distressment from the home and surroundings, often it
affects the livelihood of the person in order to extern. Thus, there
must exist justifiable ground to sustain the order of externment.
The order of externment, therefore, must be strict within the
bounds of statutory provision. Under Clause (a) of Sub-Section-1
of Section 56, the externing authority must be satisfied on the
basis of the objective material that the movements or act of the
person to be externed are causing or calculated to cause alarm,
danger, or harm to a person or property. Under clause-B there must
be objective material on the strength on which the externing
authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the externee is engaged or
about to be engaged till the commission of offences involving force
or violence. Mere registration of the number of offences by itself
has not sustained an externment under Section 56 (1)(b) of the
Act. The offences must either involve elements of force or violence
rkn
7 wp413.2025.odt
or fall under chapters XII, XVI, and XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
In addition, the externing authority must record satisfaction that
the witnesses are not willing to come forward to lead evidence in
public against the externee by reason of apprehension on their part
as regards the safety of their person or property.
9. To sustain an action of externment under Sub Clause-
B, the offences the externee has engaged in must be under one of
the chapters enumerated therein, and the acts or conduct of the
externee must be such that the witnesses are terrified and
dissuaded from giving evidence in a public hearing due to fear for
the safety of their person or property.
10. In the light of the above-mentioned requirements of
Section 56(1)(a) and (b), the aforementioned challenges deserve
to be appreciated. First, the consideration of the offences which do
not fall within the ambit of Clause-B of Sub-Section-1. Perusal of
the chart of the offences indicates that all the crimes are registered
against the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which is not
covered under Chapters XII, XVI, and XVII of the IPC. Only two
crimes are registered under Sections 452 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 324, 506, and 427 read with
rkn
8 wp413.2025.odt
Section 34 of the IPC. First, the consideration of the offences
which do not fall within the ambit of Clause-B of Sub-Section-1.
The situation thus is that the externee authority had floated the
pendency of six cases, which did not satisfy the requirement of the
class of cases stipulated by clause-B, and also considered the
crimes in which the petitioner is already acquitted. The
considerable period has already elapsed from the registration of
the aforesaid crime till the initiation of the action for externment.
The Crime no. 76 of 2026 was registered on 19/04/2016, whereas
crime no. 267 of 2024 was registered on 11/04/2024. Out of
which, the petitioner is already acquitted in crime No. 76 of 2016.
The purpose of externment is not punitive. Externment is with a
view to disable a person by moving him away from surroundings
which prove favourable for the commission of the offences and
thereby disarm the influence in the said area. Thus, there ought to
be a lively life, generally the acts of the externee and the action of
the externment. The stale cases cannot be used to support the
externment order. This also bears upon the subjective satisfaction
arrived by the externing authority.
11. Moreover, if the order passed by the externee
rkn
9 wp413.2025.odt
authority as well as the appellate authority is considered, there is
no subjective satisfaction recorded by both the authorities. There is
no reference as to the confidential witness. Moreover, the reply
filed by the present petitioner appears to have not taken into
consideration by the authority.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though the externment period is already over, the petitioner wants
to challenge and seeking quashment of the order passed, as there
would be stigma due to the said order.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as no
subjective sanctification is recorded by the authority, there is no
reference as to the confidential witnesses, and there is no live link
between the acts of the externee and the action of the externment.
In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out
a case in his favour and accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order.
a] The writ petition is allowed.
b] The impugned order dated 10/03/2025 passed by the
respondent No.2 and confirmed by the order dated
rkn
10 wp413.2025.odt
08/04/2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under
Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
