JEEVAN PANDURANG PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the order of exterment passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner, New Bombay, dated the 15th of March, 1986 is challenged on various grounds.

(2.) It appears to be an admitted position that initially a show cause notice came to be issued against in all twelve persons by the Deputy Police Superintendent on the 16th of October, 1985. It also appears from the record that it was not pursued. The second show cause notice came to be issued on the 14th of February, 1986. Admittedly, the second show cause notice is based on different allegations and is restricted to the petitioner only. It also appears to be an admitted position that the petitioner is a trade union leader and there was a trade union rivalry in the industry known as Messrs. Skol Breweries Ltd. situate at Kegaon, Uran, District Raigad. It is the case of the petitioner that because the petitioner and his associates are members of CITU, i.e. Centre of Indian Trade Union, at the instance of the management, in all 17 externment orders came to be passed against all the trade union activists. It is also contended by Mr. Pungalia that the fact that the externment proceedings were instituted against 12 persons and 17 externment notices were issued clearly indicates that the power under section 56 read with section 59 of the Bombay Police Act was exercised colourably and mala fide. It is also contended by him that though the petitioner was acquitted in some of the cases even prior to the actual issuance of the externment order, the said fact was not noticed by the externing authority and he mechanically passed the impugned order. It is also his case that if the allegations made in the show cause notice and the ultimate order of externment are read together, it is quite clear that the externment order is based on certain extraneous material which was not disclosed in the show cause notice. The learned Counsel then contended that even the State Government in appeal acted mechanically without any application of mind, though it was specifically brought to its notice that the petitioner was acquitted in certain cases.

(3.) The allegations of mala fides are denied by the respondent. It is well known that it is very easy to make allegations of mala fides but very difficult to establish the same. Many times such allegations are made very easily without any substantial material in support thereof. But in view of the denial of the respondent, we do not propose to decide the said question. However, if the admitted position in this case is taken into consideration viz. that initially 12 persons were roped in one show cause notice and thereafter 17 externment came to be issued and the fact that the ultimate order is based on general averments and allegations which were not made subject-matter of the show cause notice and to say the least, even the general nature of these allegations was not disclosed in the show cause notice then the impugned order must get vitiated. In our view, there was a total non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority to the relevant material. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police it is stated that as many as 8 cases are registered against the petitioner and all these cases are awaiting their trial. This is factually incorrect. From the material placed on record, it is quite obvious that at least in Summary Case No. 439 of 1984 and Regular Case No. 115 of 1984 the petitioner came to be acquitted. In spite of this, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has stated in his affidavit sworn on the 21st of August, 1986 that all cases are awaiting their trial. This clearly indicates non-application of mind even at the stage of the filing of an affidavit.