CHAUHAN SHAUKATALI MOGALKHAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.P.S.Gondaliya, 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 order of externment dated 31/7/2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehsana as well as the order dated 9/1/2001 passed by the Appellate Authority are challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.P.S.Gondaliya, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the show cause notice has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehsana on 22/6/2000 under Section 59 relying upon the provisions of Section 57(c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). Mr.Gondaliya has also submitted that the Criminal Cases, which have been referred in the show cause notice including one chapter case all are pending against the present petitioner and the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the cases, which are referred to in the show cause notice. Mr.Gondaliya has also submitted that Section 57 (c) of the Act relates to taking into account the cases, wherein the conviction has been made against the concerned Externee. But in the facts of the petitioner's case, there was no conviction in respect to the cases, which are referred to in the show cause notice and, therefore, relying upon the provisions of Section 57(c) of the Act itself, it is non-application of mind by the concerned Authority. Mr.Gondaliya has also submitted that all 4 cases which have been referred to including chapter Case, are pending against the present petitioner and no conviction has been declared by the Competent Court. Mr.Gondaliya has raised another contention that the statements of the secret witnesses, though recorded prior to the show cause notice, have not been disclosed by the concerned Authority in the show cause notice. Therefore, the material, which is adverse to the petitioner is suppressed and not disclosed by the concerned Authority. Mr.Gondaliya has also submitted that the statements of the secret witnesses have been considered by the Appellate Authority also. In this connection, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aswin Chandulal Jaiswal v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara & Another, reported in 1990 (1) G.L.H. 314. Mr.Gondaliya has also submitted that the specific contentions have been raised by the petitioner in ground (F) at page-7 of the petition.