1 wp.3265-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3265 OF 2010 Shri Perumal Arsan Madrasi, ] Aged 42 years, Occ. Service, ] Residing at Swami Nagar, ] Ambernath, Dist – Thane. ] ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Deputy Commissioner of Police, ] Zone – IV, Ulhasnagar, ] District – Thane. ] 2. Assistant Commissioner of ] Police, Ambernath Division, ] Ambernath, District – Thane. ] ..RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.H.M. Inamdar, Advocate i/b. Mr.A.R. Pitale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.P. P. Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 22nd MARCH, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 06th APRIL, 2011 2 wp.3265-10 JUDGMENT : 1. Writ Petition is heard finally. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority – Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Ulhasnagar, District – Thane dated 19th November, 2010. 3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Externing Authority - DCP, Zone-IV, Ulhasnagar, District- Thane and the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order. 4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders. 5. Senior PI Amboli police station, Mumbai submitted a 3 wp.3265-10 proposal to DCP, Zone-IV, Ulhasnagar, District – Thane i.e. Externing Authority for initiating action under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 against the present petitioner mainly alleging that his activities are injurious to the public at large and said petitioner was continuously indulging in activities of assault, extortion, rioting etc. and indulging in the offences punishable under Chapters XVI & XVII of Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the victims and the witnesses of various incidents were not willing to come forward and make complaints against the petitioner by reason of apprehension in their mind regarding safety of their person and property. Initially show cause notice was issued under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act. It was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ambernath Division, Ambernath dated 22.3.2010. In the said notice, the details of the offences were mentioned as under: Sr.N o. Police Station C.R. & Sections Court case No. Status 1. Ambernath 37 / 91, u/s. 324, 323, 427, 34 of IPC. RCC No.29 /91 Discharged 23.10.1996 2. Ambernath 226 / 95 u/s. 325, 323, 34 of IPC. RCC No.183/95 Compromised 21.3.1998 4 wp.3265-10 3. Ambernath 113 /2002 u/s. 325, 506, 34 of IPC. RCC No.634/02 Pending in Court 4. Ambernath 136 / 2003 u/s. 147 to 149, 324, 323 of IPC. RCC No.698/03 Acquitted. 04.03.2004 5. Ambernath 139 / 2003 u/s. 147 to 149, 307, 452, 325 of IPC RCC No.745 / 03 Pending in Court. 6. It is an admitted position that out of the above referred five offences mentioned against the petitioner, in the first matter of the year 1991, he was already discharged vide order dated 23.10.1996. The second matter was compounded and disposed of on 21st March, 1998. Matter at Sr.No.4 was ended in acquittal vide order dated 4th March, 2004. Hence, the matters at Sr.Nos.3 & 5 are apparently pending. 7. Apart from the above criminal antecedents, earlier there were two externment orders dated 7.2.2004 and 17.9.2004 by which respectively for the period of two years each the petitioner was externed from the jurisdiction of Thane, Raigad, GreaterMumbai and Mumbai. However, still it is a factual position that the Appeals preferred against the said externment orders were allowed by the Competent Authority of State of Maharashtra and 5 wp.3265-10 respective externment orders were quashed and set aside vide orders dated 27.2.2004 and 19.10.2004. 8. The impugned order of externment is challenged on the following grounds : [i] That, it is excessive as the alleged offences were confined to the areas of Ambernath police station only and as such it was erroneous on the part of the Externing Authority to consider that the externment of the petitioner is necessary for the other Districts i.e. Raigad, GreaterMumbai, Mumbai, apart from entire Thane District. [ii] Old and stale matters and in which the petitioner is discharged and acquitted, except two pending old matters of the year 2002, were considered for passing the order of externment. [iii] There is total non-application of mind by the Externing Authority and also the Appellate Authority inasmuch as the very cases now taken shelter of for passing the present externment order, were used as material against the petitioner to extern him in the earlier externment orders dated 7.2.2004 and 17.9.2004 and those externment orders were then set aside by the Appellate Authority. 6 wp.3265-10 [iv] The entire order of externment externing the petitioner for the period of one year from the jurisdiction of Thane, Raigad, GreaterMumbai and Mumbai, is against the settled provisions of law and as contemplated by Sections 56 & 59 of Mumbai Police Act, and as such, order cannot be partly upheld for any particular District and entire order must go. 9. Shelter of the ratios propounded by the following authorities were taken on behalf of petitioner : i. 2007(11) LJSOFT 93 [Ajit Champatrao Bhapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ii. 2006(11) LJSOFT (URC) 54 [Smt.Ashadevi Subhedar Jayswar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Mumbai & Ors.] 10. Both the authorities mentioned above were taken shelter of to canvass the proposition that mere geographical proximity is not a ground to extend the order of externment to another District or the part of a District. Hence, externment order suffers from vice of being excessive and it cannot be set aside in part and the entire order of externment is required to be set aside. 7 wp.3265-10 11. In view of the above and specifically considering that old and stale matters were considered for passing the externment order, and that the order is excessive so far as the territory from which the petitioner is externed, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, present Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment dated 7.9.2010 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3.11.2010 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD