RAZAKBHAI ABDULBHAI GHANCHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order of Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special) dated 21/05/1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993 and dated 30/07/1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1473 of 1993. The orders are passed by one Mr. J. M. Parmar, Deputy Secretary, Home Department as appellate authority under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the said Act and since an identical question of law is raised in both these petitions by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, these petitions a r e heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) In Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993, notice dated 1 5/06/1992 was issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka, to the present petitioner under Sec. 59 of the said Act, informing the petitioner in writing of the general nature of material allegations against him and giving him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding such allegations. Thereafter, after following the procedures stipulated by Sec. 59 of the said Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka respondent No. 2 passed the impugned Order dated 8/12/1992 under Sec. 56(b) of the said Act externing the petitioner from the area of City of Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad (Rural), Bhavnagar, Surendranagar, Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Sabarkantha and Kheda for a period of two years, the other districts being contiguous to the area of operation of the petitioner. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to remove himself outside the aforesaid areas for a period of two years. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the second respondent externing him from the aforesaid areas for a period of two years, the petitioner preferred Appeal to the Slate Government under Sec. 60 of the said Act and by order and communication dated 21/05/1993, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), acting as appellate authority, has passed the impugned order. In this order he has recorded a finding that on going through oral submission made by learned Advocate appearing for the externee and on considering the evidence and materials which were produced before him and after taking into consideration the entire case file, he was satisfied that there were no proper and sufficient reasons for confirming the order of externment. However, he has, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Sec. 60(3) of the said Act, issued certain directions and imposed certain conditions so as to regulate the conduct of the externee, which in his opinion, were necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm. He has in this connection, imposed the conditions calling upon the externee to furnish bond of the amount of Rs. 10,000.00, out of which he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000.00 in cash and he was further directed to mark his presence at the nearest police station at the interval of every fortnight for a period of two years. On his fulfilling such conditions, the appeal is ordered to be allowed and the order of externment passed against him by Sub-Divisional Magistrate is ordered to be set aside. It is this order, which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) In Special Criminal Application No. 1473 of 1993, notice dated 5/11/1992 was issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad, to the present petitioner under Sec. 59 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the area of Valsad District, Surat District and Bharuch District. After affording an opportunity contemplated by Sec. 59 of the said Act, ultimately the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad, passed the impugned order dated 14/06/1993, thereby externing the present petitioner from the aforesaid three districts for a period of one year. The said order of externment passed under Sec. 56 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Appeal under Sec. 60 of the said Act to the State Government and the very officer, namely, Mr. J. M. Parmar, who heard the appeal, has after taking into consideration the oral as well as written submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the evidence that was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and all other papers in the file, passed the impugned order dated 30/07/1993. In the said order, the appellate authority has recorded the satisfaction that there were no proper and sufficient reasons for passing the order of externment and that the order of externment passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Valsad, was not required to be confirmed, but at the same time he has proceeded to pass order under Sec. 60(3) of the said Act calling upon the present petitioner to furnish bond of the amount of Rs. 10.000.00 and on such condition being satisfied, the order of externment is ordered to be set aside and appeal is ordered to be allowed. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.