GOPAL PABU GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Articles 14,15,19,21 and 226 of the Constitution of India is the order of externment dated 05.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in Magistrate/Hadpari Case No.20 of 2012 under Section 57(C) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 by way of Appeal No.433 of 2013 before the Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat. Before the said appeal is heard and disposed of, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner inter alia challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 as the appeal is not likely to be heard within short time or in near future. At the time of argument, statement is made at the bar that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat and thus, the present petition is taken up for final hearing. The impugned order passed under Section 57(C) of the Act states that the externee had been convicted of offences punishable under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act and further that he would likely again to engage himself in the commission of offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. Therefore, the externee was called upon to remain present in the inquiry which was to be held under the provisions of Section 57(C) of the Act. After the inquiry, impugned order was passed on 05.02.2013 externing the petitioner from districts of Kutch, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Patan and Banskantha for a period of one year.

(3.) THE petitioner challenged the impugned order on various grounds that the externment order is passed on account of five convictions for the offence punishable under Sections 66B, 65F and 65E of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Except this, no further material was available with the externing authority to come to the conclusion that the externee would likely to indulge in similar activities in future which is a must for passing an order on the grounds mentioned in Section 57(C) of the Act. Not only that the proved offences were in the nature of plead guilty and it being a part of plea bargain, such orders cannot be considered as material consideration for stern step of externment and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. It is also contended that no offence under Indian Penal Code is registered for alleged apprehension that the petitioner would create fear or terror in the mind of people and thus, the impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind.