Quashed¶59

Chhailsingh Shivsingh Jaitwat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025WP/6239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Criminal Writ Petition No.6239 of 2024; externment order quashed; Maharashtra Police Act 1951 S.56 and S.60; absence of subjective satisfaction; no live link between offences and externment; offences solely at Navghar Police Station; four-district ban (Mumbai, Thane, Palghar, Mumbai Suburban); show cause notice; Mira-Bhayander Vasai-Virar Commissionerate; Externment Appeal No.65 of 2024; Divisional Commissioner Konkan; Deepak v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 applied; Article 227; Article 19(1)(d); R.N. Laddha J.; 13 January 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned externment order dated 9 April 2024 bearing No.6/2024 and the appellate order dated 26 September 2024 in Externment Appeal No.65 of 2024 quashed and set aside; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶59

Chhailsingh Shivsingh Jaitwat vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned externment order dated 9 April 2024 and the confirming appellate order dated 26 September 2024 are vitiated by the authorities' failure to discuss the live link between the registration of offences and the initiation of externment proceedings, and by the absence of recorded subjective satisfaction for externing the petitioner from four districts. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The respondent authorities who passed the impugned externment order and dismissed the petitioner's appeal failed to discuss the live link between the registration of the offences and the initiation of externment proceedings against the petitioner.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The externing authority did not record the subjective satisfaction required to extern the petitioner from four districts, especially when the offences were registered solely at Navghar Police Station.

¶52

Key takeaways

The competent authority's subjective satisfaction while passing an externment order must be based on the material on record; throughout the impugned externment order there was no indication or reason reflecting such subjective satisfaction of the externing authority.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Art. 227) - externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - externment order dt. 09.04.2024 (No.6/2024) by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate barring petitioner from entering Mumbai, Thane, Palghar and Mumbai Suburban districts for one year, confirmed in appeal (Externment Appeal No.65 of 2024, S.60) by Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division dt. 26.09.2024 - HELD, orders quashed: respondent authorities failed to discuss the live link between registration of offences (registered solely at Navghar Police Station) and initiation of externment proceedings, and the externing authority did not record the requisite subjective satisfaction for externment from four districts, there being no indication in the order of any such satisfaction based on material on record - principle in Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99, applied - both orders quashed and set aside; petition disposed of (R.N. Laddha, J.).

¶1

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2025.01.14 01:24:11 GONSALVES +0530

¶2

15.wp6239-24.docx

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Writ Petition No.6239 of 2024

¶6

Chhailsingh Shivsingh Jaitawat

¶7

Age: 58 years, Occ.: Business, R/o. Room No.703-704, Akash Niddhi Complex, Ramdev Park, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra

¶11

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle-1, Mira Road, Laxmi Park, Kanakia Road, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane

¶12

Assistant Commissioner of Police Navghar Division, Navghar Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane

¶13

Senior Police Inspector Navghar Police Station, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane … Respondents

¶14

Mr Karansingh Rajput, i/b. Fauzan Shaikh, for the petitioner. Mr Pankaj Deokar, APP, for respondent No.1/ State. API/TD Sakunde, Navghar Police Station, is present.

¶15

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 13 January 2025.

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the

Page 1 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶23

The writ petition is filed seeking following substantive reliefs:

¶24

“a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby quash and set aside the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate on 9^th April 2024 which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai vide order dated 26^th September 2024;

¶25

b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the effect, implementation and operation of the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate on 9^th April 2024 which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai vide order dated 26^th September 2024 be stayed; c) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned externment order dated 9 April 2024 passed by respondent No.2 barred the petitioner from entering Mumbai, Thane, Palghar and Mumbai Suburban districts for one year. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Externment Appeal No.65 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra

Page 2 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

Police Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide its order dated 26 September 2024. Being aggrieved with these orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the aforesaid substantive reliefs.

¶32

Mr Karansingh Rajput, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned orders are based on issues unrelated to the show cause notice. He contends that the show cause notice lacks reasonable grounds for the petitioner’s externment and does not meet the requirements of Section 56 of the Act, as it fails to set out the material allegations against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the alleged activities mentioned in the show cause notice are not sufficiently clear and precise, preventing the petitioner from adequately addressing them. The offences registered against the petitioner are arising out of a civil dispute between the two partners. The first two offences mentioned in the show cause notice were under investigation at the time it was issued. The learned Counsel argues that, although the law is clear that the offences under investigation cannot be considered when passing the impugned order, the authority nonetheless took these offences into account. According to the learned Counsel, the externment order is excessive, as it bans the petitioner

Page 3 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

from four districts for one year without proper consideration. The proposal to extern the petitioner is based solely on alleged crimes registered at Navghar Police Station. The learned Counsel asserts that the externment authority has not subjectively determined that the petitioner’s activities have endangered the public lives or that there is a likelihood of the petitioner committing cognizable and non-bailable offences in the specified areas. Furthermore, he argues that there is no live link between the alleged incidents, the issuance of show cause notice, and the order of externment.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State has opposed the petition. He has referred to the reasons recorded in the impugned order of externment and the appellate authority’s decision to submit that the petition lacks merit.

¶39

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. It appears from the record that the respondent authorities who passed the impugned externment order and dismissed the petitioner's appeal have failed to discuss about the live link between the registration of the offences and the initiation of externment proceedings against the petitioner. In Deepak Vs. State of

Page 4 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

Maharashtra & Ors.¹ , it was observed that:

¶45

“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 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 the restrained 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 specified 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 15 December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record that subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.2 on the

¶46

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99.

Page 5 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

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.”

¶52

In the present case, the externing authority has not recorded the subjective satisfaction required to extern the petitioner from four districts, especially when the offences were registered solely at Navghar Police Station.

¶53

Thus, it is clear that solely the competent authority, while passing the externment order, did not record its subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of the order. This satisfaction must be based on the material on record. Throughout the externment order, there is no indication or reason reflecting the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority.

¶54

In light of the above, the impugned order of externment dated 9 April 2024 bearing No.6/2024 by the respondent

Page 6 of 7

13 January 2025

15.wp6239-24.docx

authority and the appellate order dated 26 September 2024 passed by the appellate authority in Externment Appeal No.65 of 2024 are quashed and set aside.

¶60

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶61

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

13 January 2025

Chhailsingh Shivsingh Jaitwat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhailsingh Shivsingh Jaitwat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Rameshwar Singh @ Saheb Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Rameshwar Singh @ Saheb Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Amita Bhagwanta Nyaynit and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akshaya Ravindra Khedekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahil Monesh Raut vs Dcp Zone 1 and Ors.