ARUN RAMDAS KHIRADKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the order of externment passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nasik, against the Petitioner is impugned. The said order of externment was preceded by the service of the notice dated the 15th May 1986. The said notice issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act called upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be extended on the grounds contemplated under Section 56 (1) (b) of the said Act. After the Petitioner had appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate and shown cause, the impugned order of externment under section 56(1)(b) came to be passed. The Petitioners appeal to the Government having failed, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

(2.) Shri Kankaria, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Petition, has submitted that the externment order has taken into account material which did not find a place in the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the said Act. According to Shri Kankaria, the Petitioner had not been given an opportunity to explain the material taken into account while passing the order of externment. The Petitioner was thus prejudiced in showing cause against the proposed order of externment.

(3.) In our judgment, there is considerable force in the aforesaid submission, and the same will have to be accepted. If one has regard to the show cause notice issued under section 59 the same refers to seven offences which the Petitioner is alleged to have committed. Two of the said offences pertain to offences in respect of which the Court cases are shown to be pending, whereas the other five offences are shown to be under investigation. The impugned order of externment, however is based upon five offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the offences mentioned at serial Nos. 4 and 5 in the order of externment do not find a place in the show cause notice. Shri Kankaria is thus justified in his criticism that the said cases could not be relied upon for passing the order of externment. In any event the Petitioner had no notice regarding the said two offences alleged to have been committed by him. Consequently, be was deprived of his right to offer his explanation in regard to those offences. If the said two offences are to be omitted while considering whether to pass or not to pass the order of externment one does not know whether the externing authority would have found this fit case to pass the impugned order of externment on the strength of the remaining three offences which were mentioned in the order of externment. The order of externment is thus liable to be set aside.