SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. P.S. Tiwari for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the respondents/State. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) There are only three criminal cases pending against the petitioner. He has been ordered to be externed out of the local limits of Nagpur Commissionerate and Nagpur Rural. The Magistrate passing the order has stated in his order that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence due to fear of the petitioner. This is the prime ground on which the petitioner has been externed. However, the order is absolutely vague inasmuch as even single incident of involvement of the petitioner in threatening the witnesses has not been stated in the order. No doubt, the orders passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act are mainly based on subjective satisfaction of the authority empowered to pass such orders, still since the order adversely affects personal liberty of the individual, it is expected to the authority to concerned to indicate in brief as to what are the grounds on which such belief or satisfaction is based.

(3.) In the present case, it may be noted here that the last incident involving the petitioner is Crime No. 63/2011 of Sitabuldi Police Station. The said incident had allegedly occurred on 24-2-2011. The show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 27th April, 2012. It is not clear from the order as to what has transpired between February 2011 to April 2012 of such a serious nature which had constrained the police to prepare a proposal for externment. Moreover, the externment order has been passed after about six months of the statutory notice. In this regard, it may be noted here that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and had prayed for quashing of the show notice issued to him by the competent authority calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed. The grievance of the petitioner was that despite the show notice, the competent authority had not taken any step to consider the reply filed by the petitioner. This Court had, therefore, directed that the proposal pending for externment shall be decided within three months from the date of order. The said order was passed by this Court on 29th August, 2012. It is pertinent to note that the externment order has been passed only after receipt of the said order. As such there is unreasonable delay in issuing the show cause notice. Again there is unreasonable delay in passing the externment order. On these grounds the order needs to be set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.