MAHESH RAMANLAL PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 29.10.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the petitioner has been externed from the limits of Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda, and Mehsana Districts for a period of one year from the date of the said order as well as the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar, whereby the petitioner's appeal under Section 60 of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of externment suffers from various infirmities. It is submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the limits of Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts. He has contended that the copies of materials relied upon by the Authority was not supplied to the petitioner. He has contended that the externing Authority has faield to consider the replies, depositions and other materials submitted by the petitioner. He has contended that the Authority has failed to consider very vital and important aspect of the matter that whether the alleged activities of the externee could have been prevented by resorting to steps under the ordinary criminal law of taking bond of good behaviour and non-consideration of such a vital aspect would amount to non-application of mind. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the activities of the petitioner were in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dafer Rahman Zarar v. State of Gujarta, reported in 1999(1) GLH 425, in support of her submissions. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajput Ranjitsing Jatubha v. Vinay Vyas, 1986(1) GLR 478.

(3.) Learned APP has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in two offences and that, the statements of the witnesses really made out a case that the activities of the petitioner caused disturbance to the public order. It is, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order of externment is just, legal and proper, and no intervention is called for by this Court.