JASHWANTSINH RATANSINH GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged Order dated 3.12.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 3-Deputy Police Commissioner, (North Zone), Baroda City, by which the petitioner is externed from Baroda City, Baroda (Rural), Anand, Narmada, Bharuch and Panchmahals (Godhra) Districts, for a period of two years, under Section 59-B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short),of the Act.

(2.) PURSUANT to the Order dated 9.1.2013, the respondent No.3 the Deputy Police Commissioner (North Zone), Baroda City, has filed an affidavit-in-reply and tried to support the impugned order. Since neither the Authority who has affirmed the affidavit-in-reply nor the learned APP has raised objections with regard to filing of the petition, though, an alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section-60 of the Act is available to the petitioner, I have decided the present petition on merits without asking the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the Act.

(3.) MR . K.I. Patel, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has raised the first contention with regard to the vague notice which has been issued by the Authority. He submitted that the offences which are referred in the said notice are between the petitioner and one individual, against whom, he himself had lodged a complaint which is pending for adjudication. He further submitted in support of his contention that while describing three different instances which are not recorded with the Police are of 11.8.2012, 19.8.2012 and 26.8.2012 and no details with regard to his associate is mentioned in the said notice and, therefore, it is a vague notice.