appl374of2009.sxw 1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE -CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2251 OF 2009 Mohan Maruti Changle .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondent Mr. Naveen Chomal, for the Applicant. Mr. S. N. Gawade, APP for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 State. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED: 11th June,, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner by this petition taken exception to his externment from the area of Police Commissionerate, Nasik as well as from Nasik Rural District under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, (for short called as “the Act”), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Nasik City. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Nasik City, issued a show cause notice dated 14.5.2008, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed from Nasik City and Nasik District for a period of two years u/s 56(1)(b) in view of certain criminal cases registered against him and in view of his appl374of2009.sxw 2 dangerous activities in that area. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 4.10.2008 for his externment. That order was challenged by filing appeal before State Government. That appeal came to be dismissed. Hence this petition. 3. It is contended that even though there is a reference of five criminal cases registered against him, he has not been convicted in any of the cases so far. As per the list of cases given in the show cause notice as well as the impugned order, it appears that out of five cases, one case being Crime No.63 of 2008 was pending for investigation while the other four cases being Crime No.144 of 2004, 224 of 2006, 65 of 2006 and 66 of 2007, were pending trial. The externment order is based on the said five cases and three incamera witnesses. In those three incamera witnesses, it was revealed that on 15.2.2008, 16.2.2008 and l7.2.2008, the petitioner had threatened with knife and demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- and also snatched some amount from each of those witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as far as crime No.144 of 2004 is concerned, it shows that the petitioner had abused and assaulted and caused injuries to the complainant on the ground that the petitioner had alleged that the wife of the complainant was making false allegations against son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is not yet married. appl374of2009.sxw 3 He was aged just 23 years when show cause notice was given and was aged about 19 years when the case was registered. 4. He further points out that in the list of five cases given in the show cause notice there is a reference of Crime No.65 of 2006 registered at Sahakar Wada Plice station under section 395, 323, 504, 406, 427 IPC. However, in the show cause notice no details of that case are given. In the show cause notice, details of crime No. 65 of 2007 for the above referred sections are given. Show cause notice shows that the offence was committed on 26.3.2008. Learned counsel rightly points out that the Crime No.65 of 2007 could not have been committed on 26.3.2008. In the affidavit in reply, it is contended that the said offence was committed on 26.2.2007 and the date of alleged offence as 26.3.2008 given in show cause notice is typing mistake. Even if it is believed, the number of that case is not mentioned in the list of cases on which the competent authority was to rely. I is clear that there was clear confusion created by said show cause notice about the accuracy and correctness of the facts. The show cause notice is issued so that the concerned person is in position to make proper representation and submit explanation to the concerned competent authority against the proposed action. 5. From the notice it is clear that the Notice was defective. When the order of externment is passed against a person, that appl374of2009.sxw 4 person is ousted from his house and the area of his activities. He is deprived of his livelihood and to live with his family members at his house. Externment certainly affects the life and liberty of the person which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. If such right is to be taken away by passing exeternment order, it is necessary that all the facts on the basis of which externment is proposed to be passed should be correctly stated in the show cause notice so that he may make proper representation against such action. From the notice in question it is clear that it was defective and there is possibility that the petitioner was deprived of his right to make proper representation against such action. Even though there may be number of cases against him, if notice is defective even in respect of one case, it is likely to affect the subjective decision to be taken by the competent authority. In my considered opinion, in view of the defects noted in the said notice, the impugned order of externment cannot be sustained. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment is hereby set aside. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)