SUNIL ISHWARBHAI KOSAMBIYA Vs. DY POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a Notice dated 26.9.2012, issued by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City, under Section 59 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), by which the petitioner is called upon to remain personally present before the Authority and reply as to why he should not be externed from Surat City, Surat Rural as well as Tapi, Navsari, Valsad , Bharuch and Narmada Districts, for a period of two years, under the provisions of Section-56 (b) of the Act.

(2.) Mr. A.S. Dave, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the notice is vague and the Authority has relied upon only one offence, which is registered at Chowk Bazaar Police Station, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 337 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that, though, he was arrested in connection with the said offence and was released on bail, the Authority has erred in issuing the impugned Notice under Section-59 of the Act. It is also submitted that the entire notice is vague in nature and is issued with mala fide intention and the Authority has tried to act in arbitrary manner by issuing the impugned notice. In view of the above aspects, it is submitted that, the impugned notice is required to be quashed and set aside at this stage only by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On inquiry, Mr. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, stated that, the petitioner has appeared before the concerned Authority pursuant to the impugned Notice and has filed his written submission. I have perused the impugned notice. In my opinion, the Authority has only issued the Notice under Section-59 of the Act and has called upon the petitioner to appear before him and satisfy him that there is no need to pass any orders under Section-56 of the Act. When the petitioner himself has appeared and has filed his reply to the show cause notice, the Authority is bound to decide the matter in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the decision of the concerned Authority is appellable under Section-60 of the Act to the State Government. It is true that, the present petition cannot be rejected only on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The High Court can certain exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when its finds that the alternative remedy is not effective or adequate; the Authority has no jurisdiction to decide an issue in question or where any action has been taken in breach of the principles of natural justice.