MARRY KUTTY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five writ petitions have raised one common point besides some other points which are exclusive to Writ Petition No. 531 of 1986. We, therefore, first dispose of the point which is common to all these petitions. The common point arises out of the fact that the notice issued to the externees in all the petitions, under S.59 of the Bombay, Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), did not give any indication about the order which was proposed to be passed against them in as much as it did not state either the action proposed to be taken against them viz., whether they were only to be directed to so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the prejudicial activities complained against them or whether they were to be ordered to remove themselves, outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer passing the order or the other specified area or areas in the State and the duration of such externment. It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of the indication of such proposed order the externees were prejudiced in their defence. The impugned externment orders therefore were bad in law. In order to appreciate the point raked, it is enough if we reproduce relevant portion of the specimen order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 531 of 1986.

(2.) In order to appreciate the merits of the respcective contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter V in which the relevant provisions , are incorporated deals with, as its heading shows, special measures for maintenance of public order and safety of State. It has four sections. Section I deals with employment of additional Police, recovery of cost thereof and of riot compensation - Its assessment and recovery. Section II in which provisions immediately under consideration are found, deals with dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted of certain offences, and of certain beggars. Section III deals with control of camps, etc. and uniforms and S. IV deals with village defence parties. Sections 55 to 63AA are in S. II which, as stated earlier, deals with the dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted of certain offences and of certain beggars. Section 55 deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons. Section 56 deals with removal of persons about to commit offence. Section 57 deals with removal of persons convicted of certain offences and S.57-A with removal of certain persons declared to be beggars. Section 58 then states that the directions if made under Ss. 55, 56, 57 and 57-A not to enter any particular area shall be for such period as may be specified therein and the period shall in no case exceed two years. Section 59 then makes a provision for hearing to be given to the person concerned before order under Ss. 55, 56, 57 or 57. A as the case may be is passed. Section 60 provides for an appeal to the State Government against the order made under Ss. 55, 56, 57 or 57-A. Section 61 delares that the order passed under the aforesaid sections or in appeal by the State Government shall not be called into question in any Court except on the ground that the procedure laid down in sub-sec. (1) of S.59 was not followed or that there was no material before the authority concerned upon which it could base its order or that the authority concerned was not of the opinion that the witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the person concerned in respect of whom an order under S.56 was made. Section 62 then deals with the procedure to be followed on a failure of person to leave the area or on his entry therein after his removal. Section 63 deals with a temporary permission given to the externee to enter or return to the area from which he is externed. Section 63-AA deals with the powers of externment entrusted to the State Government or any officer specially empowered by the State Government to exercise the power exercisable by die officers otherwise entrusted with the power under Ss. 55, 56, 57 and 57-A with this exception that when such powers are exercised by the State Government or the specially empowered officer under Ss. 55 and 57- A it is lawful for them to direct the persons concerned to remove themselves also from area or areas which may not be contiguous to the local area from which they are ordered to be removed.

(3.) In all the present cases, the impugned orders of externment have been passed under S.56 of the Act. We may therefore reproduce the provisions of S.56 which are as follows :