RATAN SINGH RAMSINGH RAJPUT Vs. M V CHITALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in the present petition is an order of externment passed under section 57(b) read with section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The notice issued under section 59 preceding the impugned order and dated 8th October, 1985 states that the externee had been convicted of offences mentioned in the notice and further that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of the offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. The externee was, therefore, called upon to remain present in the enquiry which was to be held under the said section. After the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 15th November, 1985 externing the petitioner from the districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years.

(2.) The gravamen of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been passed only on the ground that the externee had to his record two convictions for the offences under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. There was no further material available with the externing authority to come to the conclusion that the externee was likely to indulge in similar activities in future which is a must for passing an order on the grounds mentioned in section 57. Hence the order is bad in law.

(3.) In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of section 57. It is as follows :-- Section 57. If a person has been convicted