LAWS(BOM)-2000-11-36

SARATULLAH MOHAMMED MUKIM KHAN Vs. SUDESH K PADVI

Decided On November 29, 2000
SARATULLAH MOHAMMED MUKIM KHAN Appellant
V/S
SUDESH K PADVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. Amin Solkar for the petitioner and Shri. K. V. Saste for respondents.

(2.) RULE. By consent heard finally.

(3.) SHRI. Solkar relied upon the decision in Mr. Isac Santan Fernandes Vs/. K. P. Raghuvanshi (1987 (3) Bom. C. R. 323), wherein validity of order of externment was considered and it was held to be vitiated since externing authority had relied upon extraneous and additional material for passing the order of externment which was not disclosed to the externee in notice under section 59. In Namdeo Zipa V/s. M. V. Chitale (1987 (3) Bom. C. R. 310), the same Division Bench of this Court struck down an order of externment passed on material extraneous to the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. It was pointed out that the externee had no opportunity to show cause or explain. The third authority relied upon by SHRI. Solkar is again Division Bench Judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 877/1986 decided on 13.7.1988, wherein the facts were that in the externing order it was stated that the petitioner had assaulted people on the basis that they were police informers. However, in the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, this fact was not mentioned. Therefore, on that count the order of externment was quashed. SHRI. Saste contended before me that apart from C. R. No. 54/2000 registered by Chembur Police Station there was enough material before the externing authority and notice of that material was given to the petitioner. The tenor of his submission is to the effect that even that material is sufficient to justify passing of impugned order. It is, however, not possible to accept the contention of SHRI. Saste for the simple reason that it cannot be ascertained as to which material preciously weighed with respondent No. 1, while passing the impugned order. More over in view of the aforementioned decisions, the impugned order becomes invalid on the ground that material extraneous to the show cause notice was relied upon.