Dilip Nandu Farle v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Jul 2009
- Bench
- A S OKA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State.
A challenge in this petition is to the order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 56(A) and (B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the said Act). By the said order dated 27th February, 2009, the petitioner has been ordered to be externed from the districts of Thane, Greater Bombay, New Bombay and Nasik for the period of two years. The main submission made by Rma wp1151-09.sxw 2 the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner are confined to the area falling within the jurisdiction of Manor Police Station in Taluka Palghar, District Thane and therefore the order of externment relaing to the four districts is excessive.
The learned APP has invited my attention to the affidavit filed by the externing authority and pointed out that when the order of externment was passed, the petitioner was absconding and later on he was arrested.
I have considered the submissions. The law on this aspect is repeatedly reiterated by this court. It will be necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in case of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police and others (2006)1 Mh.L.J. 510. It will be necessary to refer to what is held by this court in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read thus: "12. There cannot be any dispute that considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the order of externment need not be restricted to the area in which illegal activities of the externee are carried on. A larger area may always form part of externment order. In a case where activities are confined to particular district and geographically contiguous district is shown to be intimately connected to the said district, the order Rma wp1151-09.sxw 3 may extend the both districts. Mere geographically proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities by the externee.
The decision of the Apex Court in Padharinath's case proceeds on the basis of established intimate connection between Mumbai and Thane Districts. The area to which order of externment is to operate must be chosen with a view to meet the situation created by the objectionable acts of the person sought to be externed. " "14. Coming back to the facts of the cases in hand, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2005 the order of externment alleges the prejudicial activities of the petitioner which are confined to area falling within the jurisdiction of Mulund Police Station in Mumbai. It is obvious that the order of externment extending to Thane district would have been in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, the order is passed which applied to Raigad district along with Thane and Mumbai districts. As held by me, mere geographical proximity is no ground to pass order of externment.
The order merely recites that there are facilities of communication available between Mumbai and district Raigad. There is nothing in the order to show that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Mulund Police Station can be said to be intimately connected to the district Raigad. There is nothing in the order to show that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there is a necessity of extending the order to district Raigad. Thus, in my view, the order is excessive as it extends to district Raigad. It must be noted that there is another error int he order. The order treataes Navi Mumbai as a separate district when it admittedly forms part of the Thane District which is already mentioned in the order. However, it cannot be said that the order is also vitiated due to this error. "
In the present case, perusal of the impugned order shows that there is nothing mentioned therein to show that considering the Rma wp1151-09.sxw 4 prejudical activities of the petitioner and the facts peculiar to the petitioner, it is necessary to extend the order of externment to the adjoining Nasik district. Perusal of impugned order and even the affidavit in reply shows that there is non application of mind on this aspect. This Court has repeatedly noted in the orders passed that Navi Mumbai is not a separate revenue district. However, in many cases, it is found that the officers who are passing orders of externment have treated Navi Mumbai as a separate revenue district.
The impugned order is clearly excessive and hence, the petition must succeed. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). JUDGE Rma wp1151-09.sxw 5 Rma wp1151-09.sxw
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.