MOHANIF ABDULBHAI MULLICK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Mr. S. P. Dave, learned A.P.P. waives service of the Rule for the Respondents. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have decided to hear the Rule today, and even Mr. S. P. Dave, learned A.P.P. sees reason behind this course being adopted. Therefore, the petition is finally heard today, and shall stand disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) . It is distressing that within the span of one week, we have come across a second matter wherein the order of externment passed by the externing authority has been dealt with by the same Deputy Secretary Mr. J. M. Parmar, acting on behalf of the State Government in the Home Department (Special), wherein it is manifest that the Deputy Secretary, either does not know the way in which the appellate powers conferred upon the Government under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act have to be exercised, or that he does not understand what he writes in his appellate order. The aforesaid observation of ours will be immediately clear when we narrate the facts of the case.

(3.) . The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabadrespondent No. 3 herein, by his order under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, ordered the externment of one Ibrahim alias Chinadada Abdulla Pathan, for a period of two years from the entire area within the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad as also the contiguous areas of Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts. The said order is dated 23/03/1993. Appeal under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act (for short "the Act") was preferred before the State Government. Mr. J. M. Parmar, Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), heard the appeal and disposed it of by his order dated 1/06/1993 (Annexure 'B' to the petition). The brother of the externee has moved this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.