IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1481 OF 2008. Raja Challumuttu Devendra. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, through 1. Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-IX Brihan Mumbai. 2. Principal Secretary, Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ..Respondent. .... Mr.S.K. Keswani, for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2nd September 2008. : 2nd September 2008. : 2nd September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT : 1. The submissions of the leaned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (the first Respondent herein) in purported exercise of power under section 56(i)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). The said order has been confirmed in a statutory appeal preferred by : 2 : the Petitioner. 2. Various contentions have been raised by the Petitioner in support of this Petition. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the order is excessive in as much as though the alleged prejudicial activities of the Petitioner were confined to S.V.Road, Juhu Choupati, etc in Mumbai, the order of externment relates to Greater Bombay as well as Thane Districts. He submitted that as the order is excessive, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has not even considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Petitioner and therefore, the order is vitiated. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State, who submitted that there is no scope to interfere with the subjective to satisfaction recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. He submitted that subjective satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cannot : 3 : be interfered with. He has also produced for my perusal the case file maintained by the Authorities. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have also perused the case file maintained by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The case file includes the papers of the externment proceedings as well as the appeal. I have also perused the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It must be noted here that the Assistant Commissioner of Police was appointed as an inquiry officer to hold an inquiry under section 59(1) of the said Act of 1951. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Petitioner adduced evidence by examining certain defence witnesses. On the basis of inquiry held by him, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police which is on the file. 5. Perusal of the order of externment which is impugned in this Petition shows that there is no reference to the depositions of the witnesses examined : 4 : by the Petitioner before the inquiry officer. It is true that the order of externment is neither quasi-judicial nor a judicial order. However, fact remains that there is not even a reference to the depositions of the witnesses examined by the Petitioner before the inquiry officer. This shows non-aplication of mind by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and therefore his subjective satisfaction stands vitiated. 6. It must be also noted here that the perusal of the file shows that apart from the order of externment served to the Petitioner, there is a detailed order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on the file recording reasons for his subjective satisfaction. Admittedly a copy of the said order has not been served to the Petitioner. It appears that a copy of the said order was however placed before the Appellate Authority when the appeal was heard by the Appellate Authority. 7. Thus, this is a case where there is a breach of principles of natural justice as a copy of the reasoned : 5 : order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was not served to the Petitioner. Since the said reasoned order has been placed in the file, I have perused the same. Even in the reasoned order, there is no reference whatsoever to the deposition of the witnesses examined by the Petitioner. 8. An order of externment under section 56(i)(a)(b) of the said Act of 1951 affects liberty of an individual and therefore as the order is clearly illegal, the same will have to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.Oka,J)