The Bombay High Court bench quashed the order of police authorities, extrening Shiv Sena party members out of entire Ahmednagar District claiming it to be an impugned order suffering from vice of arbitrariness. The bench consisted of Justice M.G. Sewlikar and T.V. Nalawade.
It was alleged on the petitioners that they were running a gang and were armed with knives and that they were assaulting people including doctors and government servants and six offences were registered against them relating to human body and property, which led to the externment proceedings where they denied all allegations and claimed that proceedings were initiated by their political rivals. Learned Counsel S.S. Chapalgaonkar was representing the petitioner and Shri S.J. Salgare, learned A.P.P. was representing the respondent.
It was argued that the activities of the petitioners are dangerous and harmful to the society. The allegations showed that they assault any one including doctors and government servants. They have created reign of terror in the locality. People are not coming forward to depose against them. Therefore, to have peace and harmony in the society, their externment is absolutely essential and therefore, they have been rightly externed from Ahmednagar district.
It was submitted that extraneous material has been considered by respondent no.1 and 3 while passing order of externment. According to him, this itself is a ground for setting aside the externment order. He has further stated that the petitioners are alleged to have formed a gang. It is alleged that they have formed a gang of vagabond boys but no action has been taken against those vagabond boys. He further argued that in two cases the petitioners have been acquitted. But those cases have been considered by respondent No. 1 and 3 for externing petitioners. He further argued that the externment orders are excessive, as the activities of the petitioners are restricted to Rahata Police Station but they have been externed from entire district, for which no reasons are assigned. He, therefore, prayed setting aside the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 3.
The Court observed the fact that the petitioners were acquitted in two of six cases in the show cause list and stated’
“When a competent Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioners, there was no reason for the Externing Authority to consider these cases for the externment of the petitioners”.
The Court even questioned the time period of 5 years between the cases and the sudden proceeding of externment.
The Court observed that the respondent considered two cases outside of the show cause list and also failed to mention the alleged gang members in the show cause notice and questioned the existence of such gang stating’
“There is no evidence to show that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have formed a gang of which they are leaders. The Externing Officer has neither mentioned the names of other gang members nor is any action initiated against any of the gang members”.
The Court further claimed the externment order was excessive and could not sustain without any reason, and it suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and thus quashed the externment of the petitioners.