1972 (12) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Externment Order Upheld. Court Rejects Appellant's Arguments on Witnesses, Notice, and Order Scope.

Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Versus Dy. Commr.   Of Police, The State Of Mahrashtra

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the externment order. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the unwillingness of ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegation of unwillingness of witnesses to depose against the appellant.2. Vagueness of the particulars in the notice issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act.3. Requirement for the externing authority to pass a reasoned order.4. State Government's obligation to provide reasons for dismissing the appeal.5. Reasonableness of the externment order extending beyond the specific localities of alleged illegal activities.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Unwillingness of Witnesses to Depose Against the Appellant:The appellant contended that the assertion in the externment order that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against him in public was falsified by the record of the present proceedings. The appellant highlighted that in Criminal Cases No. 2106/P of 1969 and 2337/P of 1969, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution in each case. However, the Court rejected this contention, stating that no connection was shown between these particular criminal cases and the incidents referred to in the externment order. The Court emphasized that it is not necessary for all witnesses to be unwilling to give evidence for Section 56 of the Act to apply. The fact that some witnesses deposed in other cases does not negate the assertion that witnesses were generally unwilling to give evidence in public against the appellant.2. Vagueness of the Particulars in the Notice Issued Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act:The appellant argued that the particulars in the notice were so vague that he could not possibly meet the allegations, thus denying him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Court examined the notice and found that it provided sufficient details to inform the appellant of the general nature of the material allegations against him. The Court noted that a full and complete disclosure of particulars, such as specific dates or names, would frustrate the purpose of an externment proceeding by potentially identifying witnesses who were unwilling to depose. The Court held that the obligation under Section 59 is to inform the proposed externee of the general nature of the material allegations, not specific particulars.3. Requirement for the Externing Authority to Pass a Reasoned Order:The appellant contended that the externing authority must pass a reasoned order to ensure the right of appeal is not illusory. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the proposed externee is only entitled to be informed of the general nature of the material allegations. Requiring the externing authority to write a reasoned order would necessitate a discussion of the evidence, which could identify witnesses and potentially expose them to danger. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the externment proceedings would be defeated if the authorities were required to provide detailed reasons.4. State Government's Obligation to Provide Reasons for Dismissing the Appeal:The appellant argued that the State Government's failure to provide reasons for dismissing the appeal indicated non-application of mind. The Court held that for the same reasons discussed in the previous point, the State Government is not required to provide detailed reasons for dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the limited obligation to inform the proposed externee of the general nature of the material allegations applies equally to the State Government in appeal.5. Reasonableness of the Externment Order Extending Beyond the Specific Localities of Alleged Illegal Activities:The appellant argued that his activities were confined to specific localities within the jurisdiction of the Vile Parle police station, and therefore, the order asking him to remove himself from the limits of Greater Bombay and Thana was excessive and unreasonable. The Court held that it is primarily for the externing authority to decide how best to make the externment order effective. The Court noted that a larger area might need to be included in the externment order to isolate the externee from his moorings, especially in a vast city like Bombay with its unique law and order challenges. The Court found that the externment order extending to the districts of Greater Bombay and Thana was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Court referenced consistent judgments of the Bombay High Court, which held that these districts form a single unit due to their proximity and interconnectedness.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, upholding the externment order. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the unwillingness of witnesses, vagueness of the notice, requirement for reasoned orders, and the reasonableness of the externment order extending beyond the specific localities of alleged illegal activities.