Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2021
[@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. 1676 of 2021]
Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 29th
January, 2021 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 490 of
2018 filed by the Appellant, challenging an order of Externment dated
07.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1,
Amravati City, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951, whereby the Appellant has been directed not to enter or return to
Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for a period of one year from
the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of Amravati City and/or
Amravati Rural District.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned Externment Order are
extracted hereinbelow for convenience:
1
“Whereas as per the Order under section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act
(Mumbai 22 of 1951) the Govt. of Maharashtra by Order No.Maharashtra
Ordinance No.9/94 dt.24
th
June, 1994 has directed that, Deputy Commission of
Police (Zonal) Amravati will implement the power, work and duties conferred
upon him under section 56 of the said Act.
Whereas against Rahematakhan @ Rammu Bismillakhan, age 48 years, R/o
Chaman Chhaoni, University Road, Amravati the proof of following nature has
been submitted before me.
1. Since 2017 due to his act and movement fear has been created in the
locality under Police Station, Nagpurigate and Kotwali and to the property of
people residing in the nearby surroundings and un-safety has been created in
their mind. In future, also there is every possibility of creation of un-safety.
(a) The said person by accompanying with his companions is engaged in
serious offence like threatening to kill by abusing and demanding ransom to
the people residing in area specified above.
Offence registered against aforesaid person.
Sr.
No.
Police
Station
Crime No. Sections Date Settlement
1 Nagpurigate 344/2017 384, 452, 294,
506(B), 34 IPC
12/10/2017 Under Police
Investigation
2 Nagpurigate 352/2017 384,448,294,
504, 506(B), 34
IPC
23/10/2017 Under Police
Investigation
3 Kotwali 501/2017 384 IPC 13/10/2017 Under Police
Investigation
Prohibitory Action
Sr. No. P.S. Iste. No. & Section Date of
Registration
1 Nagpurigate 53/17 under section
110(e) (g) Cr.P.C.
04/12/2017
In this way he is liable to be punished as per Chapter 17 of the I.P.C.
(b)The aforesaid person accompanying with his companions is engaged in
serious offence like threatening to kill by abusing and demanding ransom to
the people residing in area specified above.
2. He has committed activities of the nature as mentioned in paragraph No.1
sub-para No.A and B, so also has committed several activities of the nature
mentioned in the show cause notice….”
4. On or about 11th October, 2013, the Government of Maharashtra
introduced a scheme called “Dr. Zakir Hussain Madrasa Adhunikikaran
Yojana” hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for the upliftment of the
Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim children.
2
5. As per the Scheme, the Madrasas registered with the office of
Charity Commissioner or Waqf Board which had completed three years
were to be given priority for allotment of funds for basic amenities,
remuneration of teachers, scholarship of students, etc.
6. Pursuant to a Government Resolution dated 20th March 2015, the
State of Maharashtra announced the disbursement of grants totaling a
sum of Rs.1,35,70,000/- to 33 Madrasas of Amravati District for the
Financial Year 2014-2015.
7. The Appellant claims to be a religious minded journalist and
social worker, who has been fighting against corruption and misuse of
public funds. The Appellant used to publish the newspaper “kalam Ki
Takat” till 2009.
8. According to the Appellant, his daughter was studying in a
Madrasa in Amravati District in Maharashtra. At that time, the Appellant
came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas, including
misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas in Amravati
District, by the State of Maharashtra.
9. The Appellant has alleged that complaints were received by the
Government of Maharashtra, of illegalities in distribution of grants under
the Scheme, during the Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The
appellant had also made such complaints.
3
10. In view of the complaints as aforesaid, all Collectors were
directed to initiate inquiry into the disbursement of grants to Madrasas
during the Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
11. On or about 9
th August, 2017 the Appellant made an application
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from the
District Planning Committee, Amravati of the outcome of the inquiry and
details of distribution of grants in Amravati District in the Financial Years
2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
12. By a communication dated 18th September, 2017 the Appellant
was informed that a Government Order dated 24th May, 2017 had been
passed for enquiry, but no Enquiry Report had been received by the
office of the District Planning Committee. The Appellant was furnished
with a list of grantees to whom grants had been disbursed during the
years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, with particulars of the amounts
granted to the respective granters.
13. The Appellant claims that he came to know that certain
government officers, including one C.R. Rathod, the then Deputy
Director of Education, Amravati, had disbursed grants under the
Scheme in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 11th
October, 2013.
14. On or about 14th September, 2017, the Appellant filed a
complaint with the Collector, Amravati seeking appropriate action
against the concerned officers including the said C.R. Rathod, allegedly
4
responsible for illegal distribution of grants. The Appellant also
requested the Collector to stop the distribution of Government grants
under the scheme, in contravention of Rules, to certain educational
institutions and Madrasas including the institutions run by Joha
Education and Charitable Welfare Trust and Madrasi Baba Education
Welfare Society.
15. On 13th October, 2017, the Appellant requested the Collector as
also the police to investigate misappropriation of Government grants by
Madrasas in collusion with Government officials. In retaliation, affected
persons filed complaints against the Appellant, particulars whereof have
been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the impugned Externment Order
extracted above. The Appellant applied for and was granted bail by the
Sessions Court, on condition that the Appellant would attend to the
Police Station concerned till the chargesheet was filed.
16. The Appellant appears to have filed applications under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court, for quashing
the criminal cases referred to above, which are pending adjudication.
17. On or about 30.01.2018, the Appellant filed a Public Interest
Litigation in the Nagpur Bench, praying for the following orders:
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the State Minority Development Department to take action and stop
distribution of grants to the respondent no. 11 to 29 and all concerned
Madarssa’s, into the matter of the selection of the Madarsa’s under the
said scheme, which are not registered with charity commissioner or Wakf
Board and regarding the same inquiry has been already done in the year
2017 as of the Annexure F and report of it already been prepared and
5
submitted by the residential collector Amravati to the respondent no.2
further be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 2 to submit the details
of the action taken against all the concerned Madarsas, before this Hon’ble
Court in stipulated time.
(ii) issue a writ, order or directions to take action against the respondent
no. 2-10 who are responsible for the selection of the Madarsas under the
scheme.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing an
independent, impartial enquiry to be conducted regarding all the Madarsas
running in the state of Maharashtra and are receiving grants under the
scheme, by any retired High Court Judge for submitting its report before
this Court in a stipulated time.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the Respondent no. 2 to 6 to furnish the record of the funds distributed
under the schemes to the different Madarsas.
(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents 1 to initiate the departmental and disciplinary proceeding
against the Respondents no. 2-10 who are responsible for selection of the
36 Madarsas.
(vi) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
18. Some time thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 3rd April 2018
was issued to the Appellant from the office of the Assistant Police
Commissioner, Gadge Nagar Division, Amravati informing him of the
initiation of Externment proceeding against him under Section 56(1)(a)
(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. According to the Appellant, he
received the show cause notice on 12th April, 2018.
19. By a letter dated 16th April, 2018 the Appellant replied to the
Show Cause Notice dated 3rd April, 2018, inter alia, contending-
“1. In the show cause notice the reference of three criminal offences
pending against me are reflecting which includes Crime No. 344/17, 352/17
registered with Police Station Nagpuri gate and Crime No. 501/17 registered
with Police Station Kotwali. It appears that in the show cause notice the
date of the said offences is deliberately not shown.
2. First offence i.e. Crime No. 344/17 registered against me is on the
6
complaint filed by one Shamim Azahar Khan Jafar Ali Khan dt. 12/10/2017 in
which it is alleged by him that I the undersigned had threatened him on
20/9/2017 at about 9.30 A.M. to 10 A.M. and demanded Rs.50,000/-. On the
basis of said complaint FIR was lodged against me for the offences
punishable u/s 294, 34, 384, 452, 506(B) of IPC. I have filed application u/s
482 CrPC before the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur challenging the
said FIR vide Criminal Application (APL) no. 921/2017. In which Hon’ble
High Court was pleased to issue notices and same is pending as on today. I
submit that the FIR in question is maliciously lodged as I have pursued the
matter of misappropriation by the various schools including the office
bearers of the Education Department while implementing the Scheme of
Government vide G.R. dt. 11/10/2013.
3. Second Offence i.e. Crime No. 352/17 registered against me is on the
complaint filed by one Irfan Ahmed Mohd. Sheikh dt. 23/10/2017 in which it
is alleged by him that I the undersigned along with three other had
threatened him and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. On the basis of said
complaint FIR was lodged against me for the offences punishable u/s 448,
384, 294, 504, 506(B) and 34 of IPC. I have filed application u/s 482 CrPC
before the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur challenging the said FIR
vide Criminal Application (APL) no. 922/2017. In which the Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to issue notices and same is pending as on today. I
submit that the FIR in question is maliciously lodged as I have pursued the
matter of misappropriation by the various schools including the office
bearers of the Education Department while implementing the Scheme of
Government vide G.R. dt. 11/10/2013.
4. Third Offence i.e. Crime No. 501/17 registered against me is on the
complaint filed by one Chandansingh Ramsingh Rathod dt. 13/10/2017 in
which it is alleged by him that I the undersigned had demanded
Rs.25,000/- from him for not lodging complaint against him with collector.
On the basis of said complaint FIR was lodged against me for the offences
punishable u/s. 384 of IPC. I have filed application u/s 482 CrPC before the
Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur challenging the said FIR vide Criminal
Application (APL) no. 924/2017. In which the Hon’ble High Court was
pleased to issue notices and same is pending as on today. I submit that
the FIR in question is maliciously lodged as I have pursued the matter of
misappropriation by the various schools including the office bearers of the
Education Department while implementing the Scheme of Government
vide G.R. dt. 11/10/2013.
5. That the impugned action is nothing but a pressurized tactics on me for
not pursuing the matter of misappropriation before the concerned
authorities as the impugned action is initiated against me only after I have
approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing application for quashing of the
three FIRs referred in the notice in question. As such the action is with
ulterior motive and malafide.
6. That all the three FIRs are output of personal allegations levelled against
me and no allegations which satisfies a requirement of Section 56(1)(a)(b)
of the Bombay Police Act. Thus the three FIRs cannot be a ground of
externing me from entire Amravati District.”
20. On 25th April, 2018 the Appellant received another notice dated
20th April, 2018 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
7
Zone 1, Amravati City, under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act
1951. Thereafter externment proceedings were initiated against the
Appellant, which culminated in the impugned Externment order.
21. The impugned Externment Order refers to three Crime Cases,
being Crime Case Nos. 344/17, 352/17 and 501/17, which were initiated
pursuant to three First Information Reports (FIRs); (i) the first FIR dated
12.10.2017 lodged at the Nagpuri Gate Police Station, by Shamim
Azahar Khan Jafal Ali Khan, Headmaster of Priyadarshani Urdu Primary
and Pre Secondary School, run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare
Society at Azad Colony, Amravati, (ii) the second FIR dated 23.10.2017
also lodged at the Nagpur Gate Police Station by Irfan Ahmed
Mohammad Sheikh, Headmaster of Al-Haram International English
School, run by Joha Educational and Charitable Trust at Jamiya Nagar,
Lal Khadi Ring Road, Amravati, and (iii) the third FIR dated 13th October,
2017 lodged at the Kotwali Police Station in Amravati City, by C. R.
Rathod , the then Deputy Director of Education, Amravati.
22. The Appellant had been filing applications under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, seeking information from concerned authorities,
in relation to illegalities in disbursement of funds to various Madrasas
including Al Haram International English School run by Joha Education
and Charitable Welfare Trust, and Priyadarshini Urdu Primary and
Pre-Secondary School run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society.
Pursuant to such applications, the Office of the Education Officer had
8
sought information from the concerned Headmasters vide
communications dated 23.8.2017 and 25.9.2017 respectively.
23. It is the case of the Appellant that Crime Nos. 352/2017 and
344/2017 were initiated as a counterblast, in retaliation to the steps
taken by the Appellant to put an end to illegal misappropriation of
public funds and to initiate action against those involved in illegal
practices. The Criminal Case No.501/2017 filed by the said C.R. Rathod,
Deputy Director of Education, Amravati is also retaliatory, according to
the Appellant.
24. It is not in dispute that the three FIRs were filed soon after the
Appellant started making complaints and raising queries under the
Right to Information Act, 2005. Reference may be made to a response
dated 7.9.2018 of the Office of the District Collector in response to a
query of the Appellant vide an application dated 16.8.2018. The
response is extracted below for convenience.
“As per the terms and conditions of Government Resolution of 11
th
October,
2013 on the order of District Collector on the complaint dated 14.9.2017 of
Rahemat Khan Bismilla Khan in the year 2016-17 inquiry of total 36
Madarsas was done on 15.11.2017 and 26.11.2017 who have taken
Government Grant. After this inquiry with the signature of Resident Dy.
District Collector and District Collector in office note in the proposal of 36
Madarsa there is certificate of registration with the office of Charity
Commissioner. But there is no registration Certificate in the name of
Madarsa in the office of Waqf Board or Charity Commissioner. In the year
2016-17 the Directors of total 36 Madarsa have been found guilty hence
further proposal has been sent to the Govt for necessary action. After
getting directives from the Govt further action would be taken.”
25. After investigation of Crime No. 344/2017 (initiated pursuant to
9
the FIR lodged by Shamim Azahar Khan of Priyadarshani Urdu Primary
and Pre-Secondary School), charge sheet was submitted in the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 11, Amravati. Charges
were framed and the case was registered as Reg. Crl. Case No. 421.
The appellant has been acquitted by a judgment and order dated 26th
February, 2020 of the Judicial Magistrate.
26. The impugned Externment Order records that witnesses are not
ready to adduce evidence publicly against the Appellant for fear of
physical harm as also loss of their property. By a notice sent on 20th
April, 2018 the Appellant was called for a hearing to submit his reply.
The Appellant submitted his reply which as per the impugned
Externment Order “does not feel to be cogent”.
27. Allegedly on the basis of statement made by undisclosed
persons whose identity, it is claimed, cannot be disclosed, to protect
them from the danger of retribution, the Deputy Commissioner issued
an order recording the finding extracted hereinbelow :-
“… I am sure that, the said person named Rahematkhan alias Rammu
Bismillakhan age 48 years, R/o Chaman Chhaoni, University Road,
Amravati Alongwith his colleagues is engaed in illegal acts, serious offence
like threatening to kill by abusing and demanding tribute in the Police
Commissionerate to the people residing in the localities under Nagpurigate
and Kotwali. As he is having backing of Grundyism he alongwith his
companions he threatens the residents of aforesaid locality and part.
The said offences are punishable under Chapter XVII of the I.P.C.
Whereas as per my opinion as it is felt that the safety of property of
witnesses will be endangered, the witnesses are not ready adduce evidence
publicly by coming forward against the said person. The Police Inspector by
making utmost efforts took two witnesses in confidence and after assuring
them that, if they record their statement/evidence then their names and
10
identification will be kept secret. They will not call before any Court or open
Forum to adduce evidence. On such assurance their evidence has been
recorded in closed doors. Perused the said closed door statements and got
sure about its factual condition. On perusing all the documents, there is no
effect of cases filed in Court against the said person….”
28. The scope and ambit of Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1954 was considered in Pandharinath Shridhar
Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. Of Police, the State of Maharashtra
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 372 cited by Mr. Patil, appearing for the State,
where this Court held:
“8. Section 56 of the Act provides, to the extent material, that whenever it
shall appear in Greater Bombay to the Commissioner: (a) that the movements
of acts of any person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable
under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, and when in the
opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their
part as regards the safety of their person or property, the said officer may by
order in writing direct such person to remove himself outside the area within
the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or
any part thereof contiguous thereto, within such time as the said officer may
prescribe and not to enter or return to the said area from which he was
directed the remove himself. Under Section 58, an order of externment
passed under Section 56 can in no case exceed a period of two years from the
date on which it was made. The relevant part of Section 59(1) provides that
before an order under Section 56 is passed against any person, the officer
shall inform that person in writing “of the general nature of the material
allegations against him” and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering
an explanation regarding those allegations. The proposed externee is entitled
to lead evidence unless the authority takes the view that the application for
examination of witnesses is made for the purpose of vexation or delay.
Section 59 also confers on the person concerned a right to file a written
statement and to appear through an advocate or attorney.
9. These provisions show that the reasons which necessitate or justify the
passing of an externment order arise out of extraordinary circumstances. An
order of externment can be passed under clause (a) or (b) of Section 56, and
only if, the authority concerned is satisfied that witnesses are unwilling to
come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by
reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or
property. A full and complete disclosure of particulars such as is requisite in
an open prosecution will frustrate the very purpose of an externment
11
proceeding. If the show-cause notice were to furnish to the proposed externee
concrete data like specific dates of incidents or the names of persons involved
in those incidents, it would be easy enough to fix the identity of those who out
of fear of injury to their person or property are unwilling to depose in public.
There is a brand of lawless element in society which is impossible to bring to
book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can
be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to
obtain, because out of fear of reprisals witnesses are unwilling to depose in
public. That explains why Section 59 of the Act imposes but a limited
obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee “of the general
nature of the material allegations against him”. That obligation fixes the limits
of the co-relative right of the proposed externee. He is entitled, before an
order of externment is passed under Section 56, to know the material
allegations against him and the general nature of those allegations. He is not
entitled to be informed of specific particulars relating to the material
allegations.
10. It is true that the provisions of Section 56 make a serious inroad
on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the
larger interests of society. This Court in Gurbachan Singh v. State of
Bombay[1952 SCR 737 : AIR 1952 SC 221 : 1952 SCJ 279] had upheld
the validity of Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902,
which corresponds to Section 56 of the Act. Following that decision,
the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 56 was repelled in
Bhagubhai v. Dulldbhabhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Thana.
We will only add that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of
Sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied with and that the slender
safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the
proposed externee.
15. As regards the last point, it is primarily for the externing authority to
decide how best the externment order can be made effective, so as to
subserve its real purpose. How long, within the statutory limit of two years
fixed by Section 58, the order shall operate and to what territories, within the
statutory limitations of Section 56 it should extend, are matters which must
depend for their decision on the nature of the data which the authority is able
to collect in the externment proceedings. There are cases and cases and
therefore no general formulation can be made that the order of externment
must always be restricted to the area to which the illegal activities of the
externee extend. A larger area may conceivably have to be comprised within
the externment order so as to isolate the externee from his moorings.
16. An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no
greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is
reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The decision of the
Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. Divisional Magistrate,
Pandharpur, is an instance in point where an externment order was
set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by
the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were
confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an
area as extensive as districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. These areas are
far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed but
two supposedly illegal acts. The exercise of the power was therefore arbitrary
and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the
purpose of the externment.”
29. In Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003)
12
7 SCC 330, also cited by Mr. Patil, this Court held that in passing an
order of externment, the authority passing the order must be satisfied
of the expediency of passing the order. If the satisfaction recorded by
the authority is objective and is based on material on record then the
Court would not interfere with the order passed by the authority, only
because another view can possibly be taken.
However, the satisfaction of the authority can be interfered
with if the satisfaction recorded is demonstrably perverse,
based on no evidence, misleading evidence or no reasonable
person could have, on the basis of the materials on record,
been satisfied of the expediency/necessity of passing an order
of externment.
30. In Gazi Saduddin (supra), the externment notice referred to
three criminal proceedings registered against the appellant. It was
alleged in the notice that movements and activities of the appellant had
caused alarm in the locality and created an atmosphere of terror. It
contained details of three incidents having occurred within the period of
a fortnight or a month prior to the date of notice, wherein the appellant
had threatened the people for seeking their cooperation in teaching a
lesson to a particular religious community. It was mentioned that the
appellant had established contacts with an organisation engaged in
activities against communal harmony and national security and had
participated in a programme of burning the effigies of leaders of that
religious community, thereby causing communal tension in the area.
13
31. The judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors.
v. Salem Hasan Khan reported in (1989) 2 SCC 316 pertained to a
person found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotics,
who was involved in several cases of riot and also criminal intimidation,
of the residents of the locality because of suspicion that they were
supplying information to the police about his illegal activities.
Witnesses were, therefore, not willing to come forward and depose
against him. Rejecting the argument that the allegations in the show
cause notice were too vague in the absence of details to afford the
externee reasonable opportunity to defend himself, this Court held that
a full a complete disclosure of particulars as was requisite in an open
prosecution, would frustrate the very purpose of an externment
proceeding. This Court observed :-
“4….There is band of lawless elements in society which it is impossible to
bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials
there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is
impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling
to depose in public. While dealing with the contention that the State
Government was under a duty to give reasons in support of its order
dismissing the appeal, the point was rejected in the following terms: (SCC
p. 378, para 14)
“Precisely for the reason for which the proposed externee is only
entitled to be informed of the general nature of the material
allegations, neither the externing authority nor the State Government
in appeal can be asked to write a reasoned order in the nature of a
judgment.”
As observed, if the authorities were to discuss the evidence in the case, it
would be easy to fix the identity of the witnesses who were unwilling to
depose in public against the proposed externee. A reasoned order
containing a discussion would probably spark off another round of
harassment...”
32. Significantly, even though this Court allowed the Appeal of the
State and set aside the order of the High Court quashing the
14
externment order, this Court made it clear that the externment order
should not be enforced against the externee any further.
33. From the judgments cited on behalf of the State, it is patently
clear that Sections 56 to 59 of the Act are intended to prevent
lawlessness and deal with a class of lawless elements in society who
cannot be brought to book by established methods of penal action,
upon judicial trial.
34. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for
maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of
externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law
and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and
peace. In this case, it is patently clear that the impugned externment
order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the Appellant
against government officials, some Madrasas and persons connected
with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs against the Appellant.
The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson
to the Appellant and stifle his voice.
35. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the notices of
externment and the impugned externment order based on Crime Nos
344 of 2017, 352 of 2017 registered with Nagpuri Gate Police Station
and Crime No.501 of 2017 registered with the Kotwali Police Station in
15
Amravati City are patently arbitrary, mala fide, unsustainable in law
and liable to be set aside.
36. It would be pertinent to refer to communication No. KS8/ALP0S/K.L./KV/2018 dated 25.7.2018 from the office of District
Collector, Amravati in response to queries raised by the Appellant. It is
extracted hereinbelow for convenience:-
“In view of the above subject the Annexure-A of your application submitted
under Right to Information Act 2005 has been received by this Office.
Regarding Point No.1 and 4 as mentioned in your application you have
asked for the information. The information related to point No.1 and 3 is
available in this office; but the information related to point No.4 is not
available in record of this office. Hence available information is being
provided to you whereas the information that is not available is not being
provided.
Sr.
No.
Information demanded by the
applicant
Information provided to the
applicant
1 Information of point No. 1, 2 and 3
would be given as per the record.
Would be given as per the record.
2 Point No 4: To contemporary
Education Officer Secondary &
Present Director of Education
Chandansingh Ramsingh Rathod,
contemporary District Planning
Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension
Officer Sandip Bodkhe with
reference to the complaint dated
14/9/2017 in respect of Bogus
Madarse about the letter given for
submitting say in view of
explanation letter dated 13/10/2017,
26/9/2017 and 3/10/2017 returned
back to the Officer of District
Collector, if the concerned Office is
satisfied and trusting that letter then
in view of that letter the true copy
may be given duly attested.
In this matter in respect of the
Inquiry in view of the complaint
received after inquiry of Dy.
District Collector with the
explanation of said officers the
inquiry report has been sent to
Chamber Officer, Minority Dev
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
for further necessary action.
After receipt of further order any
action about the complaint can
be taken.
37. It is patently clear that pursuant to a complaint dated
16
14.9.2017 an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District Collector
against the Director (previously Deputy Director) of Education,
C.R. Rathod, District Planning Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension Officer
Sandip Bodhke. The Inquiry Report along with explanation of the
officers has been sent to the Chamber Officer of the Minority
Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for further action.
C.R. Rathod lodged FIR No.501/2017 dated 13th October 2017 against
the Appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, exactly
within one month from the date of the Appellant’s complaint against
him, in respect of illegalities in relation to disbursal of funds to
Madarsas.
38. As observed above, the Appellant was acquitted in Crime
No.344 of 2017. FIR No.352/2017 dated 23.10.2017 which led to
initiation of Crime No.352/2017 was apparently filled soon after the
complainant of the said FIR/Crime case being the Head Master, AlHaram International School received a communication from the
Office of the Education Officer (Primary), Zila Parishad, Amravati
directing him to furnish information sought by the Appellant by filing
an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
39. From the tenor of the complaint lodged by Irfan Ahmed Mohd.
Sheikh, Headmaster of the Al Haram International English School with
the Nagpuri Gate Police Station, it is patently clear that there were
disputes with regard to the manner of operation of the school.
17
Accordingly, in the FIR it is stated:-
“This School is formed after obtaining requisite permission as per rule.
Their U-Dise Number is is 27071502112. On 8
th
August 2017 the nonapplicant Rehemat Khan filed an application for getting certain information
under Right to Information Act. On 4/10/2017 the non-applicant No 1 came
in the office of the applicant and demanded the information that was given
to him. The applicant verbally told him and given in writing that this is a
private school hence information cannot be given under Right to
Information.
xxx xxx xxx
The applicant tried to convince the non-applicant No 1 that in this school
no any malfunction takes place, hence there is no question arises to pay
him anything. On that he got delirious with anger and said the applicant
that TUM BHADKHAU HO, MAI TUMHARA HISAB KARTA HOON. Saying this
he aimed the pistol towards me and tried to come near to me. Hearing this
noise the Staff Members, School Bus Driver Shakil Ahmed, Teacher of the
school Hafiz Riyaz Huseni, Watchman of the School Abdul Sayeed all
entered in the office and seeing the situation they stopped the nonapplicant and attempted to control him.”
40. The deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat,
prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint a
colour of intense gravity. Mr. Patil argued that the Appellant had
been extorting money under threat of exposing the illegal activities
of certain officials and certain Madrasas or educational institutions.
Even assuming that there was substance in the allegation, which
appears to be doubtful, an order of externment was unwarranted.
There was no reason for the complainants who lodged the FIRs to get
terrorized by the alleged threats, allegedly meted out by the
Appellant, for if those complainants had not indulged in unlawful
acts, they had nothing to fear. Even otherwise, threat to lodge a
complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of
18
externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951,
more so, when the responses of government authorities to queries
raised by the Appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly
indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without
substance. A person cannot be denied his fundamental right to
reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the
country, on flimsy grounds.
41. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this
case, where on the basis of complaints lodged by the Appellants
inquiry had been started by the concerned authorities against
government officials and educational institutions including the
complainants, who lodged the FIRs against the Appellant, the
impugned externment order which followed, cannot be sustained.
42. The Appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned
externment order is set aside.
……………………………………………J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
…………………………………………….J.
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 25, 2021
19
