* 1 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2978 OF 2010 Mohan Kotayya Dasi ..... Petitioner V/S. 1. Sanjay Yenpure and anr. ..... Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3026 OF 2010 Vinayak Hariram Pillai ..... Petitioner V/S. 1. Sanjay Yenpure and anr. ..... Respondents * * * * Mr. S.V. Kotwal i/by. Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State-respondents. * * * * CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J 7 December, 2010. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the above two petitions that arise out of externment orders passed on common grounds. 2. The petitioners were served with notices under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, calling upon them to show cause as to why they * 2 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 should not be externed from the districts of Thane, Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban and Raigad for a period of 2 years. The petitioners sent their replies to the notices. After considering the replies and hearing the petitioners, respondent no.1 passed the orders externing the petitioners for a period of 2 years from the districts of Thane, Greater Bombay and Bombay Suburban. Being aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners had preferred appeals therefrom to the Government of Maharashtra which appeals were rejected by the order dated 14th September, 2010. These are the orders impugned in the present petitions. 3. The grounds of challenge to the order of externment and its confirmation by the appellate authority are (i) respondent no.1 has not invoked the powers under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act, properly, (ii) the entire externment proceedings are based on the complaints made out of personal grudge against the petitioners, (iii) the two in-camera statements referred to in the show cause notice are vague and the allegations made therein, are false, (iv) the show cause notice is vague, inasmuch as, it refers to a non-existing Section 56(1) (a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and not under Section 56(1)(a) and/or Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, (v) the show cause notice * 3 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 does not specifically mention that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioners in connection with the alleged commission of offences under Chapter-16 and 17 Indian Penal Code and (vi) the order of externment passed is an excessive order extending to the 3 districts, when the alleged activities of the petitioners are confined only to Ambernath Police Station. 4. Considering the grounds of challenge, a brief reference to the contents of the show cause notice, as well as, externment order is necessary at this stage. The show cause notice dated 15th February, 2010 contains allegations against the petitioners that are divided in three parts. The first part relates to the allegations that the petitioners alongwith their companions have been moving in and around the city of Ambernath and the surrounding areas, acting in a manner which causes alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property of the general public. They have been abusing and threatening the people in the locality, assaulting them with iron bars, hockey sticks and wooden bars in order to create a terror so as to prevent them from approaching the police or deposing against them. The petitioners and their companions have been demanding ransom from the local persons with a threat that any disclosure to police * 4 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 would lead to dire consequences. They assaulted persons from the general public, extorted money from them, robbed them, damaged the vehicles of the witnesses and thus created a reign of terror, thereby committing offences relating to Chapter-16 and 17 of Indian Penal Code. The notice states that because of the above conduct, the witnesses are not willing to come forward and depose against the petitioners. The notice further alleges that the petitioners are likely to commit the same offences at public places in future. 5. The second part of the show cause notice refers to two cases pending against the petitioners being Case No. 678 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Case No. 865 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code reead with Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Both the petitioners were arrested in the 2 cases on 13th March, 2009 and 23rd March, 2009 respectively and have since been released on bail. 6. The third part of the show cause notice consists of in-camera statements made by the two witnesses on 9th January, 2010 and 12th January, 2010 respectively. The statements are in respect of the * 5 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 incidents dated 2nd January, 2010 and 7th January, 2010 which incidents were verified by the police on 11th February, 2010 and 27th January, 2010 respectively. The allegations in the in-camera statements are also about creating a reign of terror in the locality, taking ranson, extorting money from the general public, robing the members of general public and threatening them of assault and death in case any of them approached the police. 7. Lastly, the show cause notice refers to the impending Ambarnath Nagar Parishad elections that were to take place in 2010 with an apprehension that the conduct of the petitioners would cause difficulties in maintenance of law and order situation. There is also a reference in the show cause notice to the earlier preventive actions taken against the petitioners by obtaining a bond of good behaviour on 30th May, 2009 in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of 36 months pursuant to the order passed in Chapter Case No.9 of 2009. 8. Respondent no.1 after considering the entire material in the show cause notice against the petitioners, their replies to it and the statement of their witnesses, was convinced that the movements and acts of both the petitioners in the different areas as mentioned in the * 6 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 show cause notice, as well as, in the order was harmful and their movements and acts are likely to cause harm, danger, alarm to the general public. Respondent no.1 was further satisfied that the petitioners and their companions have been harassing, assaulting and threatening the persons of general public and witnesses, so that they do not complain to the police about the illegal activities of the petitioners. It then refers to complaints against the petitioners from the show cause notice alleging acts constituting offences under Chapters 16 and 17 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the order records satisfaction as regards the unwillingness of the witnesses to come forward and depose against the petitioners for the apprehension of assault on them and harm and damage to their life and property. For these reasons, respondent no.1 passed an order of externment for a period of 2 years restricting to the district of Thane, Greater Bombay and Bombay Suburban. The appellate court’s order while confirming the order of externment notes that the acts of the petitioner had continued despite the preventive action taken against them of obtaining bond for good behaviour. 9. While passing any order of externment, this Court is not concerned about the sufficiency of the material before the Externing * 7 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 Authority, but, only about the availability of the material as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi and another V/s. Sanjeev alias Bittoo reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) page 1025. 10. No doubt, after setting out in detail the entire material against the petitioners, the show cause notice refers to Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, instead of referring to Section 56(1)(a) and/or Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. However, since the details given in the notice satisfy both the provisions, an error in referring to the number of the section will hardly make any difference. The notice is required to be read in its entirety, instead of picking up an error which could be an typographical error. 11. Mr. Kotwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Bharat Rambhau Vairage V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 All MR (Cri.) page 2936 , submits that it was necessary for respondent no.1 to record that for both the acts specified in Section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) the witnesses are not willing to come forward and depose against the petitioners in public by reason of apprehension out of fear. He points out that the show cause notice specifically refers to this apprehension * 8 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 of the witnesses and their unwillingness to come forward in respect of the allegations made in both the clauses, as well as, the in-camera statements made by the persons. There is no reference in the show cause notice on such impact on the witnesses in respect of the pending cases. But, perusal of the order of externment, shows that the externing authority has not based its order on the pending cases against the petitioners. The satisfaction expressed in the impugned order is upon the material mentioned in the show cause notice relating to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1). Therefore, there is no substance in the contention. Similarly, the contention that the order is excessive is also without merit. The impugned order itself shows that the externing authority has not extended the order of externment to District-Raigad though the show cause notice proposes to do so. The externment order is restricted to district-Thane (within which the city and taluka of Ambernath falls), district-Greater Mumbai and district-Mumbai Suburban. The learned APP relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, The State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 1 Supreme Court Cases page 372 submits that the District-Thane is practically a part of the districts of * 9 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 Greater Bombay and Bombay suburban. This is because the three districts are so easily connected by transport by local trains, buses and taxis that it would be very easy for the externees to reach the place of externment and go out of it, within a matter of 15 to 20 minutes. The Apex Court in its decision took specific note of this situation in Mumbai in its decision to reject a similar argument made before it. It observed thus, "In the present case the area of activity of the externee was undoubtedly stated to be Santacruz, but Santacruz is a fairly wide area. Moreover, it is very intimately connected with the surrounding area of Thana district. It is common knowledge that Thana town in the surrounding area is also an area where large industries have grown contiguous with the industrial area of Greater Bombay and that the entire industrial area is connected together by several means of communication Including suburban trains of which there are several during each day,, by taxis plying to and from Greater Bombay and by bus services operating between Greater Bombay and several parts of Thana District. Therefore, the Police could reasonably have thought that it would not be sufficient to ask the petitioner to keep off only from the area of Greater Bombay which has an equally busy and highly industrialised area contiguous to it. Therefore, the order was extended to Thana District." 20. ......"It may be that the area of operation may be in a particular * 10 * W.P. 2978&3026.2010 7.12.2010 locality, but if the externment is limited only to that area, then it might be impossible to prevent the externee from visiting- that area every day. Any part in Bombay is easily connected by transport with any other part of Greater Bombay and also the Thana District, and if, for example, 'an externee is externed outside the limits of Greater Bombay, then he should not take more than 15 minutes 'to reach Kurla from a Place like Thana if the latter is excluded from externment.” In the show cause notice, a specific reference has been made to this aspect of close connectivity of the three districts. 12. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)