SSK/903 1 WP/2630.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2630 OF 2011 Shri Bhusan @ Akash Prakash Londhe ....Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Division) Nashik Town & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. U. N. Tripathi, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S. V. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents. 2. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of externment proceedings. By Order dated 29th June, 2011, the competent authority has externed the petitioner for a period of two years from Nashik City and Nashik Rural District. Before issuance of order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short “the said Act”), the competent authority issued notice to the petitioner on 22nd April, 2010 under the provisions of Section 59 of the said Act. The said notice is SSK/903 2 WP/2630.11 annexed at Exhibit A, Page 13 to the petition. The notice mentions that 6 CR are pending against the petitioner in various police stations in Nashik. The notice further mentions about the statements of the witnesses recorded in camera. The competent authority, thereafter, passed the order of externment, which order is confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. The externment order is annexed at Exhibit “B” Page 17 to the petition. It makes a reference to the 6 CRs which are already referred to in the show cause notice. The offence at Serial No.2 viz. CR 45 of 2007 at Satpur Police Station is shown to have been subjudice. This statement of fact is factually incorrect, as the petitioner made a statement that he has been acquitted in the said CR and this statement is not disputed by the learned APP. In addition to this, the competent authority while passing the externment order has also relied upon one CR viz. CR 16/11 registered at Satpur Police Station. The notice of this CR was not given to the petitioner in terms of Section 59 of the said Act. Learned APP submits that this CR is registered subsequent to the issuance of notice under Section 59 of the said Act. That does not relieve the competent authority from his obligation to give notice under the said Section to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Lt. Governor, NCT & Ors Vs. Ved Prakash @ Vedu reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2645 (S.C.) held that statutory requirements as provided under Section 59 of the said Act are required to be strictly SSK/903 3 WP/2630.11 complied with and opportunity of hearing must be given before the externment order is passed. It was further held that the externment order must show due application of mind to relevant facts. If the facts of the present case are examined on the touchstone of the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 4. Needless to mention that the competent authority is at liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner after following the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. (RANJIT MORE, J.)