1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 6 th February 2026
Appeal No.101 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner
under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, against an order
3. An externment proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner
Petitioner on account of the terror created by the Petitioner.
4. The Competent Authority took into account the following crimes
5. In addition a reference was made to the reports of non-cognizable
offences and the prohibitory actions taken against the Petitioner.
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
6. Eventually, the Petitioner came to be externed from the limits of
Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad Districts, for a term
of 24 months.
7. Being aggrieved the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before
Respondent No.3. By the impugned order, the Appeal came to be
dismissed by affirming the order of externment.
8. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
9. Ms. Heena Mushtaq Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order suffers from a clear non-
application of mind. In CR No. 336 of 2021 (Sr. No. 2 in the table
extracted above), the Investigating Officer had filed B-summary report
dated 10th February 2022. Yet, in the impugned order the said crime was
shown to be subjudice. The first informant in CR No. 221 of 2019 and
the Petitioner amicably resolved the dispute and a pursis has also been
filed in Case No. 2317/PW/21, arising out of CR No. 221 of 2019. The
action was essentially initiated on the basis of CR No. 522 of 2024,
registered at Chunabhatti Police Station.
10. In contrast to this, Mr. D. J. Haldankar, the learned APP,
supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the Competent
Authority has passed the impugned order on the basis of the objective
material and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Competent
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
Authority on the basis of objective material is not open for interference
in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
11. The Petitioner was ordered to be externed by invoking the
provisions contained in Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951. The
measure of externment, by its very nature, is extra-ordinary. It has the
effect of forced displacement from the home and surroundings. Often it
affects the livelihood of the person ordered to be externed, and the
dependants on him. Thus, there must exist justifiable ground to sustain
an order of externment. The order of externment, therefore, must be
strictly within the bounds of the statutory provisions. 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
acts of the person to be externed were causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Under clause (b), there
must be an objective material on the strength of which the externing
authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the externee was engaged or was about to be
engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence.
12. Mere registration of a number of offences by itself does not
sustain an externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act. The offences
must either involve elements of force or violence or fall under Chapters
XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the externing
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to
come forward to give evidence in public against the externee by reason
of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or
property. In effect, 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 that the acts or conduct of the
externee were such that the witnesses were terrified and dissuaded
from giving evidence against the externee in public fearing safety of
their person or property.
13. Reverting to the facts of the case, it becomes evident that the
Competent Authority took into account the crime registered at CR No.
336 of 2021 at Sion Police Station though the Investigating Officer had
filed a B-summary report. The Competent Authority's decision was thus
influenced by an extraneous consideration.
14. Secondly, CR No. 221 of 2019 registered at Chunabhatti Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 504, 506,
and 452 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code ought not to have
taken into account the said crime was registered in the year 2019 and
there was no live-link between the said crime and the extreme measure
of externment. Thirdly, the Court finds that no subjective satisfaction
has been recorded by the Competent Authority that the witnesses were
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
not coming forward to give evidence against the Petitioner in public, as
they feared for safety of their person or property.
15. Lastly, the Competent Authority was not alive to the necessity of
recording of the subjective satisfaction as regards the term of the
externment and proceeded to extern the Petitioner for the full term of
24 months, without ascribing any reason.
16. Under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 1951, a person can
be externed for a full term of two years. However, the Competent
Authority must indicate reasons as to why it considered it appropriate to
extern the externee for the full term of two years as the order of
externment impinges upon the fundamental freedom guaranteed under
the Constitution.
17. A useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of
Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1,
wherein the Supreme Court, after adverting to the provisions of Section
58 of the Act, 1951, underscored the necessity of arriving at the
subjective satisfaction regarding the term of externment also on the
basis of objective material. It was ruled that, where the externee is
externed for a maximum permissible period of two years, without
recording the subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of the
externment for a full term, it would amount to imposing unreasonable
restrictions on the fundamental rights guaranteed under clause (d) of
1 (2023) 14 SCC 707
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The observations in paragraph
No.16 of the said judgment are instructive, and, hence, extracted
below :
"16. 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
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 15 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,
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the
fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article
19(1) of the Constitution of India."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, as the impugned order
is bereft of any reason on the point of externment for the full term of
two years, the same cannot be legally sustained.
19. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order suffers from vice of
non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of the power to extern
the Petitioner under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951, and
thereby impinges upon the fundamental freedom of the Petitioner
guaranteed under the Constitution. The Petition thus deserves to be
allowed.
20. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 6th February 2026 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, as well as the order
dated 12th July 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, externing the Petitioner, stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(iv) No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/04/2026 21:13:18
