PHIROZ ABDUL RAHIM BENGALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD advocate Mr. More for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged firstly the order of externment under section 56 (i) (b) of the Bombay Police Act and the order passed by the State Home Minister on 30.5.1998 rejecting or dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the externment order.

(3.) I am totally in disagreement with this submission of Mr. More. The aforesaid portion relied upon by Mr. More from the externment order Exhibit B forms part of paragraph No. 3 wherein it is stated that the noticee, in the area where he resides, threatens and assaults the residents and shop keepers and that he extorts money at the point of weapon and his criminal acts fall under Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. If the entire externment order is seen it can not be said that the externing authority had anywhere alleged that the petitioner was creating communal tension. The aforesaid statement merely reflects that the persons of different communities live in that area. But apart from that there is not a single word in the externment order from which it can be said that creating communal tension was a circumstance used against the petitioner nor does the order show that the externing authority wanted to extern the petitioner because he was creating communal tension. In the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above the order itself reflects that the petitioner was creating communal tension and since that fact was absent in the notice, the Division Bench came to the aforesaid conclusion. Obviously that conclusion can not be attracted in the instant case. Secondly, Mr. More also relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this court reported in 1987 (3) Crimes 781 (Shera @ Asam Kawarmal Vaswani v. M. V. Chitale, D. C. P. and State of Maharashtra) wherein the externment order was covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, whereas the show cause notice was falling under clause (b) of section 56, and therefore, the court held that the order was in excess of opportunity given to the externee.