1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2009 Samir Saidulla Khan. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mrs. V.R. Raje for the Petitioner. Ms. P.P. Bhosle and Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 28th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Mentioned. Not on board. 2. This is a Petition challenging order of externment. 3. In the order of externment dated 8th July 2009, there is a reference to a case stated to have been registered against the Petitioner at Shantinagar Police Station bearing C.R. No. 171/2009 alleging offences punishable under Sections 326, 143,145,147, 149, 336 and 337 of the I.P.C. 4. The Show Cause Notice, in furtherance of which the order is made dated 27th April 2009. In the Show Cause Notice there are seven (7) cases referred by the Externing Authority, including the C.R. Numbers of Shantinagar Police Station at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7. However, in the order of the Externing 2 Authority, there is a reference to other C.R. Numbers of this very Police Station. In the order itself, it is stated that on 6th May 2009, the subject show cause notice was served on the Petitioner. When he had received the show cause notice, he has indulged in the acts of crime resulting in offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions. However, the order recites that a C.R. is registered on 15th May 2009. Obviously, therefore, there cannot be any reference to this case in the show cause notice dated 27th April 2009. It is common ground that this show cause notice refers to cases which have been registered as on that date. The order must therefore be confined to these cases and if the Externing Authority takes into account extraneous materials and cases which are not forming part of the show cause notice, then, the order must be held to be passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. One cannot taken into account something unless a person is put to notice of the same. In externment proceedings, the minimum that is required is that the show cause notice must give the details and the orders must be made on the basis of the allegations in the show cause notice and not travel beyond it. 5. From a reading of the Appellate Authority’s order, it is obvious that this non-application of mind has continued. The Appellate Authority in again a stereotyped and virtually ready made order, dismissed the Appeal. In the order running into 7 paragraphs of the Appellate Authority one finds that as a matter of ritual paragraphs 1 to 6 recite the contents of the 3 show cause notice and the order of externment. In paragraphs 7 and 8 it is shown as if compliance is made with the principles of natural justice by hearing the externee. In paragraph 8, as a matter of ritual, it is recited that the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the Externing Authority has complied with Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority proceeds to dismiss the Appeals. 6. It has been noticed in earlier order by me as well that these state of affairs would compel this Court to take judicial notice of the breach of principles of natural justice and flagrant contravention of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In so far as externment proceedings are concerned, it was hoped by me that this situation will not be continued so as to compel the Court to pass drastic orders. The learned P.P. Appeared on notice and assured me that corrective steps would be taken at both levels i.e. at the Externment Authority and that of the Appellate Authority. It is expected that such steps are taken expeditiously. 7. The complaint of Mr. Chitnis, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in this case is that the Authorities do not deal with the written arguments and the decisions brought to their notice. I find that there is substance in this complaint of Mr. Chitnis. The manner in which the externment proceedings are dealt with at both levels, leaves a lot to be desired. The seriousness of the 4 proceedings has not been realised despite Supreme Court Rulings and decisions being brought to the notice of the Authorities. 8. This is one more instance where the order will have to be set aside. Accordingly, the Petition succeeds. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. The Appeal is restored to the file of the Appellate Authority for being decided afresh, on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the earlier observations. The Appellate Authority to endeavour and dispose off the Appeal within a period of 10 days from today. 9. Liberty to apply for interim stay and even such an application should be taken up forthwith and heard if it is not possible for the Appellate Authority to dispose off the Appeal. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)