The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner; thereby externing the Petitioner from the limits of the Pimpri Chinchwad police Commissionerate and Pune Rural for a period of two years. The Court observed that if the order of externment for a maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding such necessity, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was served with a notice dated 28/10/2021 U/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act asking him to show cause as to why he should not be externed out of the aforesaid area. The show-cause notice mentioned six registered offences from the year 2009 up to 2021 registered at Pimpri Chinchwad police station. There was a reference to the statements of two witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ who were not willing to lodge the F.I.R. against the Petitioner. After this notice, another show-cause notice was served on him. That notice was dated 22/01/2022. The Petitioner was heard by the Enquiry officer. Considering the material produced before him, the Externing authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Police i.e., Respondent No.3 herein passed the impugned externment order dated 17/02/2022. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal U/s.60 of the Maharashtra Police Act which was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Externing Authority had taken into consideration the offences registered in the years 2009 and 2015 which were quite stale. The Petitioner was acquitted of the offences registered in the year 2015. She submitted that the first notice U/s.59 of the said Act was issued on 28/10/2021 and thereafter, the Externment order was passed on 17/02/2022. Thus, there was considerable delay in passing the order which showed that passing of the order itself was not necessary.
Further, she argued that the externing authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing the externment order for a maximum period of two years, and because of these infirmities, the externment order is not sustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that Respondent No.3 has recorded that the acts of the Petitioner had caused alarm in the mind of the public and his acts amount to causing alarm, harm, and danger to the public in general. On these grounds, Respondent No.3 was satisfied that the Petitioner needed to be externed. He submitted that, these reasons themselves show that the externing authority had applied its mind for externing the Petitioner for a maximum period of two years.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the petition deserves to be allowed on the last submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the externing authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction for externing the Petitioner for a maximum period of two years. When the competent authority passes an order of externment for a maximum period of two years, the order must disclose the application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing the order of externment for a maximum period of two years which is based on the material on record.
Further, the Court said that if the order of externment for a maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding such necessity, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned externment order suffers from the vice of imposing unreasonable restrictions without recording any reasons or subjective satisfaction and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Ajay Ram Thorat vs UOI & State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1490 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Rashi Sheth
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. A. R. Patil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
