RAJENDRA DAMODAR VAITY Vs. HEMANT KARKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Rajendra Damodar Vaity - the petitioner, who has suffered an order of externment under S. 56 (1) (b) of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Thane, on 19th July 1989, issued a show cause notice under S. 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the petitioner as to why proceedings under S. 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act be not initiated against him on the basis of the criminal activities set out in the said notice. The notice recites that the petitioner resides in the locality behind J. J. Chemical Company which falls within the jurisdiction of Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane. Chirag Nagar and Laxmi Nagar localities are also situate adjacent to the said J. J. Chemical Company. The petitioner and his associates who possess criminal mentality (Goondas) always move in that locality carrying deadly weapons like swords, guptis and without any fault on the part of the people who reside in that locality, they pick up quarrels on false pretext and assault them. Their activities have created a terror in the said locality and the persons residing in that locality are scared. There is great danger to the public order and the safety of these persons. In the said locality, the petitioner and his associates have assaulted and committed several offences. People are scared to lodge any complaint or give evidence in public against the petitioner. Despite this some people have lodged complaints against the petitioner and those complaints have been enumerated in the said notice. The notice then recites that in spite of these criminal complaints which are lodged in the Court, the petitioner has not desisted from repeating such criminal activities and there is no improvement in his conduct. The petitioner and his associates are accustomed to repeat such offences. People residing in the locality are very much scared and they are living under constant terror and because of the petitioner's activities they are not prepared to come forward and give evidence in public. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has called upon the petitioner to file his reply as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the revenue districts of Thane and Greater Bombay. This notice also called upon the petitioner to give such evidence oral and documentary as he deems fit to defend his case.

(3.) AFTER holding the enquiry, the Deputy Police Commissioner was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner's criminal activities have created terror in the minds of the people residing in that locality and those people feel insecured because of these criminal activities. The Deputy Commissioner of Police also came to the conclusion on the basis of the material produced before him that the petitioner is likely to continue his criminal activities in future with the aid of his associates and with a view to preventing him from creating situation of terror and insecurity in the minds of the people residing in those localities, if is necessary to extern the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, therefore, passed the order of externment externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the revenue districts of Thane and Greater Bombay. It must be stated that this order was made under S. 56 (1) (b) of the Act. It is dated 9th January 1989 and annexed to the petition at Exhibit 'd'.