J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 994 OF 2024 PETITIONER : Ratnapal @ Ratnadeep @ Kalu Hemraj Mate, Age 44 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Near Jagnade Nagar, Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1 State of Maharashtra, through its Superintendent of Police, Bhandara. 2 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr R. R. Vyas, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr N. R. Rode, APP for Respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : 23 rd APRIL, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Externment Case No.1543 of 2024 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, thereby externing the petitioner from 2025:BHC-NAG:4374 J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 2 Bhandara District for two years. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of externment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara. 3. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1951”) as to why he should not be externed from Bhandara District. Subsequently, by impugned order dated 05.04.2024, the petitioner was externed from Bhandara District for a period of two years. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority by preferring an appeal under Section 60 of the Act of 1951. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 14.11.2024. 5. Though various grounds are raised in this petition, the principle ground pressed in the argument is that without recording reason, an externment order for the maximum period of two years is passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 3 order of externment stands vitiated since no reason has been mentioned as to why the petitioner has been externed from Bhandara District for a period of two years. According to him, it is necessary that there should be application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority for deciding the duration of the externment under Section 55 of the Act, 1951, but no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara as to why the petitioner should be externed for a maximum period of two years. This shows the non application of mind on the part of the Authority. To buttress his submission he seeks to rely on the case of Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has observed as under : “13. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus : “58. Period of operation of orders under Sections 55, 56, 57 and 57A- A direction made under Sections 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 may be, 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”. 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 J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 4 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 the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to 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 tow 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 exernment 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.” 6. Per contra, Mr. N. R. Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents/State submitted that the various offences are registered against the petitioner and members of the group, therefore, the Competent Authority is justified in externing the petitioner for maximum period. The petition is devoid of merit, hence, it be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the orders impugned, it transpires that the Competent Authority issued a show J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 5 cause notice to the petitioner giving details of the crimes, wherein petitioner alongwith other group members including the head are alleged to be involved in the crime and also sought an explanation from petitioner and other members of the group as to why an externment order should not be passed. The petitioner replied. Finding no plausible explanation, the Competent Authority passed the order of externment. Perusal of the record produced by the learned A.P.P. reveals that all the three crimes mentioned in the notice issued to the petitioner which have been relied by the Competent Authority in the impugned order were informed to the petitioner. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. 8. So far as the next ground of non-recording of subjective satisfaction by the Competent Authority for externing the petitioner for two years is concerned, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1951 particularly, Section 58 of the Act of 1951, it is incumbent on the part of the Competent Authority for deciding the duration of restraint under Section 55 of the Act of 1951 to record subjective satisfaction on the objective assessment of the period for which externment order is to be passed. The impugned order nowhere J Cr.WP-994-2024.odt 6 depicts fulfillment of this essential condition of subjective satisfaction with regard to the period of externment. Thus, no reason is mentioned as to why the petitioner was externed for the maximum period provided under Section 55 of the Act of 1951. The petitioner has already suffered externment for one year. As held in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra), if no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority, it would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is allowed. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Externment Case No.1543 of 2024 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, is also quashed and set aside. (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) Tambe