Judgment 474 wp830.24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.830 OF 2024 Sheikh Javed Sheikh Mushtaq @ Pahelwan, aged 47 years, occupation municipal councilor in M.C.Digras, tahsil Digras, district Yavatmal, r/o Wahab Nagar, Digras, tahsil Digras, district Yavatmal. Aadhar Card No.2935 0421 1113. Mobile No.8379932525. ….. Petitioner. :: V E R S U S :: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 3. The Superintendent of Police Yavatmal, tahsil and district Yavatmal. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer & Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Pusad, tahsil Pusad, district Yavatmal, Email Id-sdo.pusad2015@gmail.com 5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Darwha, tahsil Pusad, district Yavatmal. .....2/- 2025:BHC-NAG:9188 Judgment 474 wp830.24 2 6. The Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch (LCB), Yavatmal, tahsil and district Yavatmal. 7. The Police Station Officer, Police Station Digras, tahsil Digras, district Yavatmal. ….. Respondents. Shri Sudhir Malode, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for Respondents/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 14/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16/09/2025 JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel Shri Sudhir Malode for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J.Khan for the State. Rule. Heard finally by consent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of externment order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 26.3.2024 and confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati externing the petitioner for a period of one year. .....3/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 3 3. Facts of the case are that, the petitioner is resident of Digras, district Yavatmal, having background of social work and was also elected as Councilor of Municipal Council, Digras in the year 2006 and since then he is working as Councilor of the said Municipal Council. His wife was also elected as President in the year 2016 as well as his mother was also elected as Councilor of the Municipal Council, Digras. Thus, the entire family is in politics. The criminal cases filed against him are of political rivalry on the say of the Minister elected from Darwah-Digras Constituency. The inspector of the Digras Police Station forwarded externment proposal No.2/2022 under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (the said Act) to the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, by issuing notice, by holding the enquiry, as per the provisions of Section 59, of the said Act, passed the externment order. .....4/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 4 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati confirmed the said order holding that there is continuous involvement of the petitioner in the illegal activities. Hence, this writ petition. 5. The said petition is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that the order passed by respondent No.4 - the Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pusad that the movement of the petitioner is causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to individual in the locality and, therefore, passed the order of externment from the jurisdiction of districts Yavatmal and Washim. Around 12 serious crimes have been registered against the petitioner and from Crime .....5/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 5 Nos.3044/2009 and 173/2016 he is acquitted. There was mutual settlement in Crime Nos.255/2006 and 211 of 2015. Thereafter also, 7 offences are still pending against the petitioner. The Police Inspector of Digras Police Station submitted proposal that the petitioner is engaged in criminal activities and total 12 offences were pending against him, out of which 7 offences are still pending against him which are in the nature of serious crimes. The petitioner is a politician and working on the post of Vice President, Digras. In the year 2006, he was prosecuted for hurting religious sentiments, assembling group of miscreants, abusing people, threatening Scheduled Tribe and the Scheduled Caste Communities. The crimes such as threatening, damaging the Government properties, injuring, and obstructing are recorded. Therefore, the order of Sub Divisional Officer .....6/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 6 confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner is proper and legal one. No interference is called for. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the political rivalry and being the political figure, the petitioner is implicated in the alleged offence. The proposal of the externment of the petitioner was initiated at the instance of the Police Inspector, Police Station, Digras, Yavatmal under Section 56 of the said Act. Accordingly, show cause notice was given to the petitioner which was replied by him on 8.5.2024. Thus, after getting an opportunity, he had explained the reasons being implicated in various offences. In fact, he is falsely implicated in the various offences. Crime Nos.255/2006; 120/2008, 3045/2008; 3044/2009; 143/2011; 3023/2013; 186/2019; 211/2015; 527/2016; 173/2016; 1291/2021, and 340/2022, out of which in connection .....7/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 7 with Crime Nos.255/2006 and 211/2015, the dispute is settled by amicable settlement. In Crime Nos.173/2016 and 3044/2009 wherein he is acquitted. The rest of the crimes are registered under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC. Not a single offence is registered against the petitioner which is of a nature for which the punishment for more than seven years is provided. There is no subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities and, therefore, the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, strongly opposed the petition and submitted that out of 12 offences, 7 crimes have been pending, out of which, one crime is registered under Section 307(5) of the IPC, which is a serious offence. The petitioner is of .....8/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 8 habitual offender. If the records of the petitioner and the registered cases are considered, many cases have been registered against him. In view of that, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. After heaving both the sides and perusing the record, it reveals that the proposal was sent to extern the petitioner from Yavatmal district for one year. Accordingly, notice was issued under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the said Act to the petitioner, which was replied by him. The order passed by the Authority shows that in all 12 offences are registered against the petitioner, out of which in 2 offences, i.e. Crime Nos. 255/2006 and 211 of 2015, the matter was settled amicably. In 2 offences, i.e. Crime Nos.3044/2009 and 527/2016, he is already acquitted. Rest of the offences are registered under Sections 294, 323, 341, 353, and 506 of the IPC. Crime .....9/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 9 No.173/2016 is registered under Sections 186, 504, 506, and 353 and Crime No.1291/2021 is registered under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506, and Crime No.340/2022 is registered under Sections 341, 292, 323, and 506 and Crime No.527/2016 is registered under Sections 134 and 135 of the said Act and under Section 188 of the IPC, and Crime No.143/2011 is registered under Sections 452, 354, 294, 427, 504 , and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Crime No.3023/2013 is registered under Sections 290, 294, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Crime No.186/2019 is registered under Sections 143, 353, 379, 504, and 427 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Crime No.120/2008 is registered under Sections 143, 148, 307, 323, read with 149 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. .....10/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 10 9. Perusal of the order of the Authority shows that considering various offences registered against the petitioner, it was recorded that offence under Section 307(5) of the IPC is a serious offence. The petitioner’s involvement is in continuous illegal activities and there is no improvement in his behaviour despite preventive action is taken against him. Considering the nature of the offence, some preventive action is required and, therefore, he is externed. 10. As far as this observation is concerned, no specific instances or the statements of the secret witnesses are mentioned in the order. The general allegations appear to be levelled that the complaints are received against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is of a criminal nature and habitual offender involved in the offence like harassing, abusing public officers, creating .....11/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 11 obstructions to the public officers while there were discharging official duties, constituting unlawful assembly, and disturbing public peace. 11. As far as the order of the externment is concerned, by its very nature, is extraordinary. It has the effect of force displacement from the home and surroundings. Often, it affects the livelihood of the person in ordered to be externed. 12. Thus, there must exist justifiable grounds to sustain the order of externment. The order of externment, therefore, must be strictly within the bounds of the statutory provisions. Under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56, the externing authority must be satisfied on the basis of the objective material that the movements or acts of .....12/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 12 the person to be externed are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Under clause (b), there must be an objective material on the strength of which the externing authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the externee is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence. Mere registration of a number of offences by itself does not sustain an externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act. 13. The offences must either involve in events or force or violence or fall under Chapter XII and XVI of the IPC. In addition, the externing Authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are notwithstanding are not willing to come forward to lead evidence in public .....13/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 13 against the externee by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. 14. To sustain an action of externment, under sub clause (b), the offences, the externee has engaged in, must be under one of the Chapters enumerated therein and the acts and conduct of the externee must be such that the witnesses are terrified and dissuaded from giving evidence in public hearing due to fear for the safety of their person or property. 15. In the light of the above requirement under Section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of the said Act, the aforementioned challenged deserve to be appreciated. 16. In order to appreciate the argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, reference has to be made to the provisions of Section 59 of the said Act. It provides that before action is taken under Sections 55, .....14/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 14 56, and 57 of the Act, the authority entrusted with the duty of passing orders under any one of those sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorized by that officer or authority shall inform the person proceeded against in writing "of the general nature of the material allegations against him" in order to give him a reasonable opportunity' of explaining his conduct. 17. In the present case, the externing Authority has considered 7 cases against the petitioner, out of Crime No.340/2022 wherein investigation was in progress and rest of the crimes wherein the crimes are pending. The considerable period has already elapsed from registration of the aforesaid crimes as the last crime was registered against the petitioner is in the year 2022 i.e. Crime No.340/2022. Since initiation of the action for externment, the purpose of externment is not punitive. .....15/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 15 to disable a person by moving him away from surroundings which prove favourable for the commission of the offences and thereby disarmed the influence in the said area. Thus, there ought to be lively acts of the externee and the action of the externment. If the order passed by the externing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is considered, there is no subjective satisfaction recorded by both the Authorities. Moreover, the reply filed by the petitioner appears to have been considered by the Authority, which was not considered. The application of mind to the material of record by authority passing externment order is necessary. The grievance is made that the substance of the statement of confidential witnesses was not mentioned in the externment order. 18. Perusal of the externment order shows that cursory reference was made as to the statements of the .....16/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 16 confidential witnesses. The substance of that statements was not briefly stated in the externment order. In order to grant a fair and reasonable opportunity to the person who is proposed to be externed has right to know the material relied upon against him as well as opportunity to effectively and meaningfully deal with the said matter. It is seen that on this count, a fair and reasonable opportunity was not granted to effectively and meaningfully deal with relied material before passing the order. In my view, on these grounds also, the externment order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 19. The term satisfaction relates to the "thinking" of the detaining authority. The term has a reference to the mental element of the subject i.e. the desires or feelings of the detaining authority. In a wider sense the term "satisfaction" may include "pleasure". However, in the .....17/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 17 context in which the term ' satisfaction' has been used indicates that there must be a state of mind which has satisfied or contented occasioned by some facts, events or state of things. 20. Bearing in mind the above said dictionary meaning of “subjective satisfaction” means in the first instance personal satisfaction of the concerned detaining authority himself only and none else as a necessary corollary thereof and in the second instance, therefore it cannot be tested on the objective test. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case in his favour. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (1) The Writ Petition is allowed. .....18/- Judgment 474 wp830.24 18 (2) The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 26.3.2024 and confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati externing the petitioner for the period of one year is quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! ...../-