vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.543 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.543 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.543 OF 2008 Krishna S. Shetty ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.S.N. Raj for Petitioner Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 10, 2008 APRIL 10, 2008 APRIL 10, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment issued on 25.10.2005 and the order passed on 30.1.2008 in the statutory appeal filed by him. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that people residing in the vicinity of Hotel Baywatch Restaurant and Bar situated on Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East) had complained that the management of the hotel was engaged in a prostitution racket by soliciting customers who would hire the services of the waitress of the hotel for prostitution. The premises were raided when the petitioner who was the Manager of the hotel was present. The police found the girls with the customers, concealed behind a camouflaged door. 35 girls in the age group of 19 to 30 were found on the : 2 : premises and taken into custody. The people in the neighbourhood, especially women faced continuous problems because of these immoral, illegal and clandestine activities. They had approached the Social Service Branch of the Crime Branch under whose instructions the raid was conducted. 2. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.9.2007 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of the city of Mumbai for a period of two years. A second show-cause notice was issued on 21.9.2007 based on a supplementary report received. the petitioner replied to both these showcause notices. He was heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone IV) who by his order dated 25.10.2007 has externed the Petitioner for a period of two years from Brihan Mumbai. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the State Government and the period of externment has been reduced to six months. This period will come to an end on 24.4.2008. 3. The main submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that a single offence which has been registered against the petitioner would not constitute an act on the part of the petitioner which would cause alarm, danger or harm to any person or property. He submits that statements of four witnesses have been : 3 : recorded in-camera, without there being any finding in the order of externment that these witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose in public. He submits that such a finding is a sine qua non be one order passed under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. The learned counsel then points out that these actions have been taken by the police because of the bias against the beer bars. 4. The learned APP points out that a case has been registered against the petitioner under sections 341, 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. She submits that the in-camera statements are sufficient to draw the conclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous person and a bully. An affidavit has been filed by Sunil Ramanand, DCP, Zone IV detailing the manner in which the raid was conducted and supporting the action taken by the police. Significantly, in para 12(viii), he has stated that although the police had information of the illegal activities in the hotel they were bribed and, therefore, failed to take action on a regular basis. 5. The order of externment discloses that the DCP Zone IV has arrived at a subjective satisfaction and concluded that there was reason to believe that the acts of the petitioner caused alarm, danger or harm to the : 4 : property of the public at large. He has observed that a lawful and licensed establishment which was a restaurant cum orchestra bar was being used as a facade to conduct an illegal and unlawful activity of running a prostitution den in a highly organised manner. The order in appeal confirms the findings recorded by Respondent No.2. However, on consideration of all the in-camera statements, the period of externment has been reduced to six months. 6. Both the orders reveal that they have been passed in accordance with law and on the authorities being satisfied that circumstances do exist warranting the externment. The reasons given in both these orders cannot be said to be perverse or not germane. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no statement in the order of the DCP indicating that the witnesses were unwilling to come forth to have their statements recorded in public and, that therefore the entire proceedings need to be quashed, cannot be accepted. The show-cause notice itself discloses that the four witnesses whose statements have been recorded in-camera were unwilling to disclose their identity as they feared that physical harm would be caused to them and their property by the Petitioner. : 5 : 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Balu Shivling Dombe v/s. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur & anr., AIR 1969 BOM 351 where a Division Bench of this Court has held that the expression ‘alarm, danger or harm to person or property’ in section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 refers to such alarm, danger or harm to a person or property of the public at large. An order of externment cannot be passed merely on the finding that the movements or acts of a person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to one or two individuals in a locality. The learned counsel has submitted that besides these four statements, there are no other witnesses who have come forth to make any allegations against the petitioner. In my opinion, the order passed under section 56(1)(a) against the petitioner does mention the acts of the petitioner which are causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm or danger to the public at large. The order has not been passed merely on the basis of the threat perceived by one individual whose statement has been recorded. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dhananjay Manohar Sapkar v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005(2) Mh.L.J 384 2005(2) Mh.L.J 384 2005(2) Mh.L.J 384 in support of his submission that a : 6 : single offence under the Indian Penal Code would not attract the provisions of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. That observation has been made in the facts of that case as all the other offences against the petitioner in that case were in respect of offences committed under the Bombay Prohibition Act or under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. In the present case, the offence registered against the petitioner relates to section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 besides sections 341, 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was the Manager of the Hotel in which the alleged immoral and unlawful activities occurred. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the orders passed by Respondent No.2 and the State Government cannot be faulted as they have been passed on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities, which has not been shown to be either at perverse or malafide. 10. Petition is dismissed.