SRI. SRINIVASA. K v. Location: HIGH

of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State of Maharashtra1 in paragraph 9, this Court has held that the reasons which necessitate or justify the passing of an extraordinary order of externment arise out of extraordinary circumstances. In the same decision, this Court held that care must be taken to ensure that the requirement of giving a hearing under Section 59 of the 1951 Act is strictly complied with. This Court also held that the requirements of Section 56 must be strictly complied with.

10. There cannot be any manner of doubt that an order of externment is an extraordinary measure. The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. In practical terms, such an order prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during the period for which this order is in subsistence. In a given - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 case, such order may deprive the person of his livelihood. It thus follows that recourse should be taken to Section 56 very sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure. For invoking clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 56, there must be objective material on record on the basis of which the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property. For passing an order under clause (b), there must be objective material on the basis of which the competent authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC. Offences under Chapter XII are relating to Coin and Government Stamps. Offences under Chapter XVI are offences affecting the human body and offences under Chapter XVII are offences relating to the property. In a given case, even if multiple offences have been registered which are referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person proposed to be externed by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or their property. The recording of such subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment under clause (b).

11. On 2nd June 2019, the Police Inspector of Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna submitted a proposal to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Badnapur for permitting detention of the appellant for a period of 15 days by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC (as inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1981). In the said proposal, reliance was placed on the same six offences registered against the appellant, which were made a part of the show-cause notice dated 7th July 2020 on the basis of which the impugned order of externment was passed. The police arrested the appellant and produced him on 2nd June 2020 before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class along with the aforesaid proposal. By the order dated 2nd June 2020 (Annexure P-4), the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said proposal to detain the appellant and directed his immediate release subject to the - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 condition of attending the concerned Police Station between 10 am to 1 pm till 9th June 2020.

12. The power under sub-section (3) of Section 151 as amended the State of Maharashtra is to arrest a person on the basis of an apprehension that he is likely to continue the design to commit, or is likely to commit a cognizable offence after his release and that the circumstances of the case are such that his presence likely to be prejudicial maintenance of public order. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the proposal to keep the appellant in detention for 15 days. There is nothing placed on record to show that the said order was challenged by the police. After having failed to satisfy the learned Judicial Magistrate about the necessity of detaining the appellant for 15 days, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer initiated action of externment against him by issuing a show-cause notice on 7th July 2020. It is not the case made out in the show cause notice dated 7th July 2020 that after release of the appellant on 2nd June 2020, the appellant indulged in the commission of any offence or any other objectionable activity.

13. Considering the nature of the power under Section 56, the competent authority is not expected to write a judgment containing elaborate reasons. However, the competent authority must record subjective - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 satisfaction of the existence of one of the grounds in sub-section (1) of Section 56 on the basis of objective material placed before it. Though the competent authority is not required to record reasons on par with a judicial order, when challenged, competent authority must be in a position to show the application of mind. The Court while testing the order of externment cannot go into the question of sufficiency of material based on which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded. However, the Court can always consider whether there existed any material on the basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been recorded. The Court can interfere when either there is no material or the relevant material has not been considered. The Court cannot interfere because there is a possibility of another view being taken. As in the case of any other administrative order, the judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.

14. In the facts of the case, the non- application of mind is apparent on the face of the record as the order dated 2nd June 2020 of the learned Judicial Magistrate is not even considered in the impugned order of externment though the appellant specifically relied upon it in his reply. This is very relevant as the appellant was sought to be - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 detained under sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC for a period of 15 days on the basis of the same offences which are relied upon in the impugned order of externment. As mentioned earlier, from 2nd June 2020 till the passing of the impugned order of externment, the appellant is not shown to be involved in any objectionable activity. The impugned order appears to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner. The first three offences relied upon are of 2013 and 2018 which are stale offences in the sense that there is no live link between the said offences and the necessity of passing an order of externment in the year 2020. The two offences of 2020 alleged against the appellant are against two individuals. The first one is the daughter of the said MLA and the other is the said Varsha Bankar. There is material on record to show that the said Varsha Bankar was acting as per the instructions of the brother of the said MLA. The said two offences are in respect of individuals. There is no material on record to show that witnesses were not coming forward to depose in these two cases. Therefore, both clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 56 are not attracted.

15. As the order impugned takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. Considering the bare - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 facts on record, the said order shows non- application of mind smacks arbitrariness. Therefore, becomes vulnerable. The order cannot be sustained in law.

16. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus: “58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case may be”.

17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no. 2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court clearly holds that externment is not an ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly, only in extraordinary circumstances, as an order of externment - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024 takes away the fundamental right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) "

5. The order was passed considering the show cause notice that was issued on 29.03.2023 and the order passed thereon dated 10.04.2023. The impugned show cause notice is dated

29.09.2023. A perusal of which would indicate that it is verbatim similar to what was found fault with by this Court, supra. The order that is passed against the petitioner impugned herein externing him from Mysuru to Aurad, Bidar, is also verbatim similar to what is passed earlier. Therefore, it does suffer from want of application of mind for passage of order externing the petitioner taking away his fundamental right. It is solely on the said ground that the order suffers from want of application of mind. Therefore, the respondent- State shall reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 and then pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, if it has become necessary in law. - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:14700 WP No. 9461 of 2024

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order; i) The petition is allowed in part. ii) The impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by respondent No.3 stands quashed. iii) The matter is remitted to the hands of respondent No.3/Assistant-Commissioner, Mysuru, reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner and then pass necessary orders in accordance with law, if it has become necessary in law. Sd/- JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38