A Person Cannot Be Subjected To Rigors Of Externment By Relying On Same Cases, Violative Of Article 19: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has said that subjecting a person to externment by relying upon the same cases, which were also subject matter of the previous orders of externment, is violative of Article 19 of Constitution.

Quashing an a third order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nashik, Justice Prakash Naik observed that the externing authority relied on same cases that were used to extern the appellant previously. The powers of externment are exercised in most arbitrary manner, said the court.

"The externee cannot be externed repeatedly by relying upon the same material. The previous order were modified by the appellate authority. The externee cannot be subjected to rigors of externment by relying upon the same cases. It is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The freedom of persons is restricted by exercising the powers of externment in most causal manner."

The petitioner had challenged the order of externment dated May 4, 2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – I, Nashik under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act and order dated August 27, 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal challenging the externment under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The order referred to seven cases since 2015 and statements of two witnesses recorded in-camera. The cases related to offences like grievous hurt (326 IPC), attempt to murder (307 IPC), criminal intimidation as well as offences under Indian Arms Act and Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act.

The petitioner was externed from the areas of Police Commissioner at Nashik City and Nashik Rural District for a period of one year. He had already undergone the punishment till the matter was heard by the HC.

Advocate Harekrishna Mishra argued that all the cases against the appellant were registered at the same police station but he was externed for an excessive area. He contended that Appellate Authority mechanically rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of externment. It was also argued the order suffers from the principle of double jeopardy.

The APP submitted that the petition has become infructuous as the appellant has already undergone the externment. The petitioner is not only involved in several offences but is repeating these offences, he told the court.

The court relied on Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors to hold that a petition against an order of externment can be pursued even if the externment period is lapsed. The court also relied on the judgement of Subhash Ganu Bhoir V/s. K.P. Raghuwanshi and Ors in which the bench held that earlier grounds for externment cannot be used in fresh proceedings.

The court said the petitioner could not have been externed on the basis of material, which was already taken into consideration on the earlier occasion and found to be insufficient.

"The impugned order reflects complete non application of mind and casual approach of the authorities initiating externment proceedings," the court said, while quashing the externment order as well as the order passed in appeal. 

Title: Kiran Dattatraya Shedke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 494  

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment