GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution, presented by one Gurbachan Singh, praying for a writ, in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents as well as their subordinates and successors from enforcing an externment order, served on the petitioner under S. 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act (1902).

(2.) The petitioner is an Indian citizen and is said to be residing with his father at a place called 'Gogri Niwas'. Vincent Road, Dadar, his father having a business in electrical goods in the city of Bombay. On the 23rd July, 1951, the petitioner was served with an order purporting to have been made by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, under S. 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act. directing him to remove himself from Greater Bombay and go to his native place at Amritsar in East Punjab. It was mentioned in the order that the petitioner was to comply with its directions within two days from the date it was made, and that he was to proceed to Amritsar by rail. On July 25, 1951, the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of Police and prayed for an extension of the time within which he was to remove himself from Greater Bombay, and on this application the Commissioner of Police gave him time till the 30th of July next. On 30th July, 1951. the petitioner himself wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police stating that he did not desire to go to Amritsar and prayed that he might be allowed to stay at Kalyan which is outside Greater Bombay but within the State of Bombay and that he might be given a Railway ticket from Dadar to that place. It appears, that acting on this letter the police took the petitioner to Kalyan on the evening of 30th July, 1951. and left him there. After that, the petitioner commenced proceedings in the Bombay High Court. first in its original side under the Letters Patent and then in the Appellate Criminal Bench of the Court under Arts. 226 and 228 of the Constitution, complaining of the externment order mentioned above and praying for a writ of 'certiorari' to have it quashed. Both these applications were dismissed and the petitioner has now come up to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the allegation that his fundamental rights under clauses (d) and (e) of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution have been infringed by the externment order.

(3.) Mr. Umrigar appearing in support of the petition, has argued before us, in the first place that the order of externment is altogether void as it is not in conformity with the provisions of S. 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act. His second contention is that the provisions of S. 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act being in conflict with the fundamental rights enunciated in clauses (d) and (e) of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution are void under Art 13 (1) of the Constitution. The last contention urged, though somewhat faintly, is that the provision of S. 27 (1) mentioned above is discriminatory in its character and offends against Art. 14 of the Constitution.