1 WP : 2715/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2715 OF 2010 Mudassar Mohammed Salam Pinjari .... Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police .... Respondents Zone-1, Thane & Ors. Mr. Mubin Solkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 23rd December, 2010 P.C. 1. Admit. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, by this petition challenges the order dated 6th January 2010 passed by respondents no. 1 and 2 externing him from the districts Thane, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and New Mumbai for a period of one year for reasons stated in the orders. The petitioner had challenged the order of externment by preferring appeal therefrom to respondent no.3. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 19th April 2010 confirming the order of externment. The 2 WP : 2715/2010 petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of bicycle repairing carried in the name of “Sahil Cycle Mart”. He also owns a music band of banjo by name “Sahil Nasik Dhol”. He alleges that because he has married a non-Muslim lady by converting her to Islam religion, the persons in the locality are against him and have been filing false complaints against him. He claims that he is, in fact, not capable of committing the acts alleged against him on account of the disability suffered by him to his right hand fingers. He is unable to hold anything with his right hand, since the year 2008 after receiving injuries, in an incident of assault upon him. It has also been contended that there can be no substance in the claim that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner in view of complaints made to the Police by several persons which have been recorded by the Police as non-cognizable complaints. 3. The show-cause notice to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act refers to in all 20 complaints registered against him during the period 1998 to 2009. It however states particulars of only 11 complaints out of which four were allegedly pending in courts of law. Four of the complaints were at the relevant time pending. 7 non- cognizable complaints filed during the period 2007 to 2009. 3 WP : 2715/2010 Only three of the cognizable complaints were available for consideration of the externing authority as the petitioner was acquitted by the court in the fourth complaint. In the first complaint, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted his neighbour on the head with an iron bar. The second complaint is by an auto rickshaw driver alleging that the petitioner and his two accomplices had hired his auto rickshaw at Thane Station. They stopped the auto rickshaw after at some distance when the petitioner threatened him with a knife, assaulted him with fist blows and robbed him of the money, his driving license and badge. The fourth complaint is by the brother of his wife who complained to the Police that because he was opposed to the marriage of his sister with the petitioner, he was assaulted by the petitioner with a sickle on his head and injured him. The N.C. complaints filed during the period 2007 to 2009 are mostly by the neighbours of the petitioner of either assault or damage to the property. The show cause notice also made reference to the two in-camera proceedings. The first in- camera statement makes general allegations against the petitioner. The second in-camera statement alleges an incident of demand of protection money, with threats using knife. 4 WP : 2715/2010 4. The externment order does not make specific reference to any of the above allegations. It states generally that the movements and acts of the petitioner are dangerous and that he is committing offences under Chapter 16 and 17 Indian Penal Code. It also states that as the petitioner has terrorised the persons from the locality, the witnesses were not coming forward to complain against petitioner. Strangely the order further states the petitioner in his defence made only one request that he should not be externed for personal reasons. There is no whisper in the order to the physical disability claimed by the petitioner. Undoubtedly the externing authority, while passing the administrative orders of externment is not expected to pass a detailed reasoned order as in judicial proceedings. However, the order must necessarily exhibit application of mind by the externment authority. The exterment order fails to indicate that the externing authority had applied his mind as it does not even make a mention of the defence of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that application of mind by the externing authority can be seen from the fact that though the notice issued to the petitioner refers to requirement of the externment of the petitioner from the districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, New Mumbai and Raigad for a 5 WP : 2715/2010 period of two years, the order of externment is limited to a period of one year with externment, from only districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and New Mumbai. The reduction in the period of externment as also the area of externment would not indicate application of mind as regards the existence of material before the externing authority. Therefore though the externing authority has reduced the period of externment and the area, it cannot be said that it had applied it’s mind to the material before it to arrive at the subjective satisfaction for passing of order of externment. There is also substance in the submission of Mr. Solkar that the very fact that there are as many as 20 complaints filed against the petitioner belies the allegation that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against him out of fear. In the circumstances, externment order cannot be justified. The same is set aside. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)