BHARWAD CHANIA MERU Vs. STATE OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra Division served an order on the petitioner under Section 47 -C of the Saurashtra District Police Ordinance as amended by the Saurashtra Act, 23 of 1951 directing him to remove himself outside the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division for a period of two years within four days. In default of compliance of the order the learned District Magistrate directed that the Police Department should arrange to lake him to Junagadh. Before making the order, the District Magistrate had served a notice on the petitioner dated 25.8.51 asking him to explain why he should not be ordered to remove himself under Section 47 -C. He was directed to appear on 3.9.51 accompanied by a pleader if he so wished. He was also informed that no adjournment would be granted. After removing himself from the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division in compliance with the order, the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate for permission to return to Rajkot for a week for domestic work. This permission was granted on certain conditions. He then made another application for extension of the period of his stay. This extension was also granted to him. He has now applied to this Court for a writ declaring that the District Magistrate's order is without jurisdiction, illegal and in contravention of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and has prayed for a direction that the opponents should not enforce the order.

(2.) IT was contended that the order in question was in contravention of the provisions of Section 47 -C of the Saurashtra District Police Ordinance which is in the following terms: If a person has been convicted - (a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or (b) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under Section 4 or 12 -A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 or under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, both as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra, the District Magistrate or the Sub -Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such route and within such time as the said Officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the area from which he was directed to remove himself.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General argued that the District Magistrate had inherent jurisdiction to proceed under Section 47 -C and if he committed an error in the exercise of the powers vested in him, the petitioner's remedy was to have approached the Government in an appeal, under Section 47 -F. He further submitted that the Order of the District Magistrate was final under Section 47 -G and could not be called in question by this Court. It is true that the Act gives the petitioner the right of appeal against the District Magistrate's order. When an appeal is provided, the Court will not issue a writ as a general rule but if the High Court is satisfied that the District Magistrate purported to act under this Section without applying his mind to the question whether the conditions which gave him jurisdiction existed or not he contravenes the fundamental rights of a citizen and it becomes the duty of the High Court to interfere. The cases cited by the learned Advocate General do not lay down the law that the High Court has no jurisdiction under any circumstances to issue a writ if the law under which the impugned order is made provides on appeal against the order.