BABER KHAN ALAM KHAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking to challenge the validity and/or legality of the externment order No. 82/MAG/EXT/CR/8 dated 17-2-1983 made against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) It appears that with a view to initiate externment proceedings against the Petitioner, a notice dated 1st December 1982 under section 59 of the Act was served upon him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate calling upon him to tender his explanation regarding the allegntions detailed therein, and for receiving the same and hearing him and his evidence, if any, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate fixed the appointment on 8th December 1982. Briefly, the allegations in the show cause notice were that during the years 1978, 1980 and 1982, he voluntarily made assaults and caused hurt to people on petty causes and he gave threats to people, thereby causing terror amongst them. His acts had also caused danger to the safety of the people and there was likelihood of breach of the public peace The notice further recited that the activities of the Petitioner were detrimental to the maintenance of public order and there was possibility of communal trouble due to communal tension. The people had entertained so much fright against him that they were not willing to come forward to give evidence against him in public by reason of apprehension of danger to their lives. It was also alleged in the notice that five offences under different sections of the Penal Code, two non-cognizable cases under section 323 of the Penal Code and one offence under section 7 (1) of the Ancient Monuments of Archaeological Sites Remains Act were also registered against him during those years, but no improvement had taken place in his conduct. The Petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and submitted his written statement substantially denying all the aforesaid allegations. During the course of proceedings, statements of inspector Shri Sovitkar on the side of the State and two witnesses on behalf of the Petitioner were recorded by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, who on considering the material on record, passed the order of externment on 17th February 1983 against the Petitioner directing him to remove himself out of the limits of Aurangabad and Jalna districts within two days from the date of the order. The Petitioner was also further directed not to enter these districts for a period of two years from the date of the order. The operative part of this order is preceded by several recitals which show that Respondent No. 1, on considering the evidence that had been placed before him against the Petitioner in support of the allegations contained in the notice served under section 59 of the Act, that on taking into account the explanation tendered by the Petitioner and the evidence furnished by him, and that after considering the entire material, was satisfied about the grounds mentioned in the notice. However, it must be pointed out that no allegations against the Petitioner about eve-teasing the girls and attempt to commit murder were made in the show causa notice, but these two grounds also weighed with Respondent No. 1 along with other grounds while passing the impugned order of externment.

(3.) Against this order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under section 60 of the Act and after hearing Counsel for the Petitioner, the State Government passed an order on 26th September 1983 rejecting the appeal. The intimation about the rejection of the appeal was given to the Advocate of the Petitioner by Assistant Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra on the same day and that intimation is at Exh. 8. It appears that the copy of order passed by the Government was not supplied to the Petitioner and hence it could not be filed along with this petition. We, therefore, requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to supply copy of order passed by the State in appeal and accordingly copy of such order was supplied to us by him. There is also an affidavit on behalf of the State to the effect that copy supplied in this Court is the true copy of the order passed by the State Government on 26-9-1983.