BARAIYA LAKHABHAI DUDHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.L.R.Pathan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) In the present petition, the show cause notice has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva on 30/8/1999 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). Thereafter, the order of externment has been passed in Externment Case No.24 of 1999 under Section 56 (a) and (b) of the Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva on 29/2/2000. The appeal has been preferred by the present petitioner under Section 60 of the Act, the same has been rejected by the Appellate Authority on 17/6/2000. The petitioner has submitted the reply of the show cause notice and the order of externment which has been passed under Section 56 (a) and (b) of the Act. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondents.

(3.) Mr.L.R.Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that various grounds have been raised by the petitioner for challenging the externment order as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. But according to him, one contention is enough to vitiate the order of externment. Mr.Pathan has also submitted that the show cause notice has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva under Section 59 of the Act to the petitioner, wherein, the concerned Authority has not disclosed any material in respect to the statement of secret witnesses against the present petitioner. No whisper has been made in the show cause notice that statement of the secret witnesses have been obtained, which have been adverse to the petitioner. However, he has also submitted that looking to the externment order dated 29/2/2000, it is clear that the statement of the secret witnesses have been taken into account while coming to the conclusion against the present petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the above material has been taken into account and the same is relied and referred to in the order of externment and the same material, if, it is not disclosed to the petitioner in the show cause notice, the same amounts to denying the legal rights to the petitioner to give effective reasonable opportunity against the such material, which has been adverse to the petitioner. Mr.Pathan has also submitted that even looking to the order of appellate authority, it is clear that it has also considered the statement of the secret witnesses against the petitioner while rejecting the appeal and, therefore, the effective reasonable opportunity, which is real purpose of enacting of Section 59 of the Act, is frustrated and the order of externment has been passed by the concerned authority against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside.