SACHIN STANY DSOUZA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes an exception against the order of externment dated 21st February, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and prays that the same be quashed and set aside. The petition is filed on 14th January, 2013, so when the matter came up for hearing, the order of externment was executed and acted upon. However, the externment order being a stigma on the character of the petitioner, the challenge survives.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of externment passed under section 56A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is not a valid order. It appears from the record that the proceeding was initiated for passing order under section 56(1) of the said Act. He submitted that the impugned order does not disclose a subjective satisfaction on the part of the externing authority. The externee has cited two defence witnesses. However, the authority has given erroneous finding that the defence did not want to adduce any evidence. He further submitted that the order does not specifically disclose that the presence of the externee would have caused danger, alarm and threat to the people at large. Hence, the order is to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Perused the impugned order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone A, Mumbai. The order of externment is required to disclose the subjective satisfaction of the externing officer and the specific details of the names of witnesses, their threat perception and their unwillingness to come forward to depose against the externee out of fear are cardinal requirements to invoke Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The law is settled on this point in the following cases of the Division Bench of this Court: