NDLI: Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	19(5) – 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – s.151 – Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(d) Maharashtra Police Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.151 – Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(d), 19(5) – Respondent no.2 exercising powers u/ s.56(1)(a)(b) passed the impugned order of externment dtd.15.12.20 against appellant, 5 offences registered against the appellant were relied upon – Statutory appeal and writ petition against the impugned order were also dismissed – Held: As the order impugned takes away fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(d), it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19 – However, it shows non-application of mind and smacks of arbitrariness – The first three offences relied upon are of 2013 and 2018 which are stale offences in the sense that there is no live link between the said offences and the necessity of passing an order of externment in the year 2020 – The two offences of 2020 alleged against the appellant are against two individuals – There is no material on record to show that witnesses were not coming forward to depose in these two cases – Therefore, both clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (1) of s.56 are not attracted – Non-application of mind is apparent on the face of the record as order dtd. 02.06.20 of the Judicial Magistrate (rejecting the proposal to detain the appellant and directing his immediate release subject to condition as stated) is not even considered in the impugned order though the appellant relied upon it in his reply – This is very relevant as the appellant was sought to be detained u/sub-sec.(3) of s.151, Cr.PC for 15 days on the basis of the same offences which are relied upon in the impugned order of externment – From 02.06.20 till the passing of the impugned order of externment, the appellant is not shown to be involved in any objectionable activity – Impugned order also does not disclose any application of mind on recording of subjective satisfaction of respondent no.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years – An order of externment is not an ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances – Impugned order of externment and that of the High Court is set aside. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56 – Nature of power under – Duty of Competent Authority – Discussed. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56 – Order of externment – Judicial review – Held: Court while testing the order of externment cannot go into the question of sufficiency of material based on which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded – However, it can always consider whether there existed any material on the basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been recorded – As in the case of any other administrative order, the judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – ss.56 and 58 – Held: On a plain reading of s.58, it is apparent that while passing an order u/ s.56, the competent authority must mention the area or District 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 – 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 restraint order u/s.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 specific period
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay.S. Oka
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 110
Petitioner	Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 8 S.C.R. 35
Judgement Date	2022-01-28
Case Number	139

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

D. Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs. K. Sateesh

Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police

D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal

State of Punjab Vs. Deepak Mattu

Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors.

Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Anr Vs. B. Srinivas

State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Dr. Maroti S/o Kashinath Pimpalkar

Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

D. Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs. K. Sateesh

Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police

D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal

State of Punjab Vs. Deepak Mattu

Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors.

Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Anr Vs. B. Srinivas

State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Dr. Maroti S/o Kashinath Pimpalkar

Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.