The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of externment passed against a Pune resident on the grounds that proper notice was not issued to the externee.
However, in another case, the same bench upheld an order of externment issued against a Mumbai resident saying it was just, proper and legal.
In the first case, Justices Mridula Bhatar and P V Hardas on June 25 quashed an externment order issued by a Deputy Commissioner of Police against Atul Prabhakar Nade, a 25-year-old resident of Lohiyanagar in Pune.
A notice was issued to the externee under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and the order was captioned as passed under section 56(1)(b). However, in the body of the order, the externing authority had considered the ingredients of Section 56(1)(a) of the said Act, the Judges noted.
"Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel is valid and with substance. We are of the view that the order, therefore, is vitiated and is to be set aside," the judges observed.
"We, accordingly, allow this Writ Petition and quash and set aside the order of externment dated March 16, 2012 and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the said order," the Judges further said.
The Judges said that though the authority has quoted "Order is passed under section 56(1)(b)," the officer (who issued the externment order) has stated that the acts of the externee were causing or calculate to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, so it is within the purport of Section 56(1)(a) and not of Section 56(1)(b) of the said act.
Therefore, if the concerned officer was of the view that there is alarm, danger or harm to the person or property due to the activities of the externee, then it was necessary for the authority to give notice accordingly, the Judges held.
However, in another case pertaining to Amar Malvankar, a 37-year-old business of Jogeshwari in North-west Mumbai, the court upheld externment order issued against him saying it was proper and legal.
