YUNUSHKHAN YUSUFKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Imran H. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(2.) By the present application, the applicant has challenged the externment order dtd. 19/1/2018 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby he has been externed from Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar Districts for a period of two years by exercising powers under Sec. 56(b) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. The said externment order was carried in appeal by the applicant before the appellate authority. By the order dtd. 26/7/2018, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant.

(3.) Mr. Imran Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant submits that there is no cogent evidence before the externing authority to arrive at a satisfaction that the applicant is required to be externed for a period of two years from four Districts. He submits that the authorities have relied upon two FIRs. He further submits that the FIR registered at Ramol Police Station has since been disposed of by the Trial Court by acquitting him from the offence. He submits that in the said case, the complainant was the mother of the applicant. With respect to the case registered at Maninagar Police Station, the same is pending trial. He would submit that the authorities have not expressed any satisfaction with regard to 10 witnesses on whose statements the authorities have relied upon that they were terrorized enough not to give evidence in public. He submits that the impugned order was passed on 19/1/2018 and the appellate order was passed on 26/7/2018, which has been stayed by this Court vide order dtd. 26/11/2018. He submits that around four years have passed and there is no any further complaint and the applicant has been living in the area peacefully. He further submits that no reasons have been accorded, nor any activity has been shown with respect to other Districts from which he has been externed and therefore also, the order is bad in law. He submits that the petition may be allowed and the impugned order of externment may be quashed and set aside.