Bombay High Court
NILESH JITENDRA PHADTAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
An externment order is invalid where extraneous material not disclosed in the show‑cause notice is taken into account, violating natural justice, and such order must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh Jitendra Phadtare, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging Externment Order No.36 of 2025 and its confirmation on 6 February 2026, which barred him from the Pimpri‑Chinchwad area for 24 months. He argued that the show‑cause notices under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act were defective because they did not disclose a later‑filed non‑cognizable offence (NC No.978 of 2025) and that the order was based on extraneous material, violating natural justice. The respondent state contended that the petitioner was involved in serious offences and that the order was valid even if the NC was ignored. The Court found that the additional factor (NC No.978) was not mentioned in any notice, rendering the externment order procedurally infirm. Relying on Ganpat T. Katare v. Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Court held that an externment order based on undisclosed material is bad. Consequently, both the 21 August 2025 order and the 6 February 2026 confirmation were quashed, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Externment Order No.36 of 2025 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
- Whether the show‑cause notice complied with the requirements of Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
- Whether consideration of NC No.978 of 2025, not disclosed in the notice, violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the period of 24 months of externment is justified without specific reasons.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2)(3), 352
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 56(1)(b), 60
Subjects
- Externment
- Natural Justice
- Show Cause Notice
- Maharashtra Police Act
- Section 60
- Section 56
- Constitutional Writ
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Quash
Judgment
915-WP-2049-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2049 OF 2026
Nilesh Jitendra Phadtare …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Sahil Ghorpade i/b. GG Legal
Associates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 25th JUNE 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of Externment Order No.36 of 2025 dated 21 st August
2025 passed by Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-II, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune as also to the order dated 6 th
February 2026 passed by Respondent No.3-Divisional
Page 1
Sonali
915-WP-2049-2026.DOC
Commissioner alias the Appellate Authority, Pune in Externment
Appeal SR/190/2025 filed under Section 60 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951. By the impugned order dated 21 st August 2025,
the Petitioner has been externed from the area of Pimpri-
Chinchwad Comissionerate, Pune City and Pune Rural for a period
of 24 months. The said order has been confirmed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Pune by the impugned order dated 6 th February
2026.
3. It is the submission of Mr. Ganesh Gupta, learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner that initially notice has been given
under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 in July
2025 on the basis of C.R. No.484 of 2021 and C.R. No.205 of
2025. He submits that as far as C.R. No.205 of 2025 is concerned,
the said offence was under investigation and therefore, notice
could not have been issued with respect to the said offence. He
further submits that as far as C.R. No.484 of 2021 is concerned,
there is no live link between the said offence and proposed action
of externment. He submits that one Chapter Case which has been
registered in 2022 has also been mentioned in the Show Cause
Notice. He submits that after the charge-sheet is filed in C.R.
Page 2
Sonali
915-WP-2049-2026.DOC
No.205 of 2025, another notice has been given on 14 th August
2025 just to show live link between C.R. No.205 of 2025. However,
he submits that authorities have already decided to extern the
Petitioner even when the said C.R. No.205 of 2025 was under
investigation and therefore, the subjective satisfaction was vitiated.
He submits that the Externment Order also takes into
consideration one N.C. which has been filed bearing N.C. No.978
of 2025 under Section 352 and 351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. He submits that as per the settled legal position, if
the additional factor is taken into consideration while passing the
Externment Order, then the order is bad. He relied on the decision
of this Court in the case of Ganpat T. Katare vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Police & Ors.1 He further submits that although
the Externment Order is for 24 months, no reasons are given why
the externment is required for maximum period of 24 months. To
substantiate the said contention, he relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.2.
1 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1146
2 AIROnline 2022 SC 70
Page 3
Sonali
915-WP-2049-2026.DOC
4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP supports the
impugned order. She submits that the Petitioner is involved in two
offences being C.R. No.484 of 2021 and C.R. No.205 of 2025. She
submits that both the offences are very serious, concerning bodily
offences. She submits that although the N.C. which has been
registered as N.C. No.978 of 2025, is taken into consideration,
even if the same is ignored, the impugned order is valid. She
therefore, submits that no interference in the impugned orders is
warranted.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the said N.C. No.978 of
2025 has not been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice issued in
July 2025 as well as Show Cause Notice dated 14 th August 2025.
Thus, it is clear that the additional factor has been taken into
consideration while passing the Externment Order and notice of
the same has not been given to the Petitioner. Thus, there is
violation of the principles of the natural justice.
6. In the case of Ganpat T. Katare (supra), this Court has held
that order of externment relies on extraneous material which is
Page 4
Sonali
915-WP-2049-2026.DOC
not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice then the Externment
Order is bad.
7. In view of this position, it is not required to consider other
contentions which have been argued by the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner.
8. For the above reasons, the impugned order dated 21 st August
2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Externment
Order No.36 of 2025 as also the order dated 6 th February 2026 of
the Divisional Commissioner alias Appellate Authority in
Externment Appeal/SR/190/2025 filed under Section 60 of the
Maharashtra Police Act are quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.06.25
18:44:20
+0530
Page 5
Sonali
Checking your session…