Bharat Sukrya Patil v. Dy.Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Appropriate Authority ordering externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from specified areas. That order has been confirmed in appeal.

3. Only three points have been urged before us. The first argument is that the order is excessive, inasmuch as the petitioner has been ordered to SQ Pathan 2

1970.12 remove himself from Thane, Mumbai Suburbs and Raigad District. The argument proceeds that the activities of the petitioner are confined to areas of Mumbra and Shil Dighar area within Thane District. As a result, externment from three Districts is excessive. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Silva @ Gora Silva Ayanar Arjun v. Nawal Bajaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. reported in 2007 All M.R. (Cri.) 24. Taking this contention first, from the show-cause notice as well as the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Appropriate Authority, it is noticed that the same is founded on the nine criminal cases registered against the petitioner. No doubt, the police station where the cases have been registered are essentially in Mumbra and Shil Dighar. It is, however, common knowledge that the said areas are in close proximity to Raigad as well as Mumbai Suburban District, though part of Thane District. The distance of Police Station located at Shil Dighar from the border of Raigad District is stated to be only around 7 kilo meters. Distance between Mumbra and Mumbai Suburban is also within 14 kilo meters. Applying the principle underlying the dictum in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 630, that the externment could SQ Pathan 3

1970.12 be legitimately made against a person from District Thane and Mumbai being neighbouring Districts, in the fact situation of the present case, we find that the externment from the specified areas indicated in the externment order is not excessive. As aforesaid, petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in which the petitioner was externed from Greater Mumbai, New Mumbai, Thane and Raigad Districts for two years. The Court held that the externment order was excessive. That finding is in the fact situation of that case, as the Court noticed that the activities of the petitioner were confined to Cuffe Parade Police Station in Colaba Division only. In the present case, however, as found earlier, the activities are in Mumbra and Shil Dighar area which has close proximity to the neighbouring Districts of Raigad and Mumbai Suburban areas. Accordingly, this argument does not commend to us.

4. The next point urged before us is that no details about the date and place of incident referred to by the witness whose in-camera statement has been recorded, is provided, which has affected the petitioner’s right to make effective representation. This argument is advanced on the basis of statement of witness No.`A'. Witness No.`A' has referred to different SQ Pathan 4

1970.12 incidents. As regards one instance, he has only mentioned the tentative period when the same had taken place and the time while generally indicating that the same had happened when he was going to his house. Even though, that may not be sufficient indication, there are other instances which are spoken about by the witness regarding time and place. The subjective satisfaction has been formed by the Externing Authority after taking into account the totality of the material placed before him. No doubt, the petitioner may be at a disadvantage in offering his comments with regard to one of the incident spoken by this witness in his in-camera statement, but the same witness has referred to two other instances about which no grievance has been made by the petitioner. Further, the learned A.P.P. has rightly contended that it was not open to the petitioner to agitate this ground having failed to raise this ground specifically in response to the show-cause notice and before the subjective satisfaction was formed by the Externing Authority. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of our High Court in the case of Gafoor Dastagir Shiekh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 463. Accordingly, even this argument does not take the case of the petitioner any further. SQ Pathan 5

1970.12

5. That takes us to the third contention taken in the amended writ petition. Even this ground has been taken for the first time in this writ petition. The argument proceeds that the bail order passed in favour of the petitioner imposes strict conditions, for which reason, it was imperative for the Sponsoring Authority to place the same before the Externing Authority and in turn, the Externing Authority should have considered the same before forming subjective satisfaction. That has not been done. This assertion has been refuted by the respondents by filing reply affidavit. Two factors are noted in the reply affidavit. In the first place, it is noted that the Externing Authority was made aware about the bail order passed in favour of the petitioner. This is stated in paragraph 23 of the reply affidavit. Further, it is stated that charge-sheet in respect of the respective criminal cases have already been filed after completion of investigation and the same were placed before the Externing Authority. He has considered the same before forming subjective satisfaction. In substance, the assertion in the reply affidavit is that the Externing Authority was aware about the bail order operating in favour of the petitioner and had taken that into account before forming the subjective satisfaction. The petitioner has not filed SQ Pathan 6

1970.12 rejoinder affidavit to counter this statement made by the respondent on affidavit. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Petition is dismissed. ( R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) SQ Pathan