RAMESHBHAI SHANKARBHAI SONARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the legality and validity of the order of externment passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dholka in Externment Case No. 48 of 2001 vide order dated 17.9.2001. It is pleaded that this externment order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority namely the Deputy Secretary (Home), Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar while dealing with the appeal. Both these orders are assailed by the petitioner.

(2.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel that on account of two different Criminal Cases registered with Bavla Police Station and other two different chapter cases which were registered because of those criminal cases and so far as the present petitioner is concerned, one another chapter case bearing No. 41 of 2001 registered on the strength of the complaint of PSI, Bavla Police Station under sec. 107 of CrPC, externment proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was apprehended under sec. 151 of CrPC also during the proceedings of Chapter Case No. 41 of 2001.

(3.) The notice to show cause Annexure-A, indicates that the petitioner was asked to execute sureties at the end of the proceedings and it is not reflected in the notice that the petitioner had violated any of the conditions of the surety bond executed in compliance of the order passed in the chapter case. The allegations made in the notice to show cause, on plain reading are found vague and very general in nature. On account of registration of two different criminal cases; (i) u/s. 326, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and u/s. 135 of Bombay POlice Act and (ii) u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) & 114of IPS which were pending on the date of issuance of show cause notice, the harsh action of externment whether required to be taken was the question before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and he has failed in appreciating the totality of facts available on record. It seems that he has not exercised the jurisdiction in the letter and spirit of the provision. It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of externment is bad on three main grounds; firstly, that the notice to show cause is vague and the same is issued without proper application of mind; secondly, as such there are no five criminal antecedents and only two criminal cases were registered with the Bavla Police Station and but for that criminal cases, the police instituted, by way of abandoned caution, two chapter cases and when the petitioner had co-operated in those proceedings, the jurisdiction could not have been exercised. It is also submitted that this is a case of improper exercise of jurisdiction, and the third point raised is that even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the petitioner is required to be externed from particular area than the authority is supposed to consider the relevant areas from which area or areas he should be externed. After all the order of externment adversely affects the personal liberty and it regulates the movement of a free citizen. As such the ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate has not assigned any reasons as to why he requires to extern the petitioner from entire district of Ahmedabad and other adjoining districts merely because he is an accused of two criminal cases registered at Bavla Police Station. This so-called offending acts are committed at a village in Bavla Taluka.