HARSIHBHAI BHOGILAL TAILAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the externee") has approached this Court with the prayer that the order of externment and confirmation thereof, passed by respondent no.1 be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are:The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North Zone), Vadodara City passed an order of externment on 24.06.2003 externing the petitioner from the City of Vadodara and the adjoining districts, viz.Vadodara Rural, Anand, Bharuch, Panchmahals and Narmada for a period of two years. It is stated in the order that, 'the externee was found to have been indulging in anti social activities and attacking the citizens on one excuse or the other and creating an atmosphere of terror, disrupting the public order; that the externee was indulging in the business of country liquor of low quality, likely to result into a hooch tragedy; that the people who do not approve and consent to the criminal and anti social activities of the externee were under constant fear and do not feel their lives and limbs safe'. In the order details of three offences registered against the externee are set out bearing C.R. No.III/ 363 of 2001 under sections 66(10)(b), 65(e) and 81 of the Prohibition Act; C.R. No.III-434/01 under section 66(1)(b) and 65(e) and 81 of the Prohibition Act; C.R. No.III-16/02 under section 66(1)(b), 65(e) and 81. Besides the externing authority has also taken note of three incidents dated 21.11.2002, 24.11.12002 and 28.11.2002. In all the three incidents whenever a citizen tried to interrupt the externee in his anti social activity, the deponent was beaten in public and the people gathered around the scene were threatened by taking out deadly weapon like, knife, etc. It is also recorded that on such occasions the public order was disturbed as there was hassle in the people and a feeling of terror was created.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the petitioner contended that the order is a stereotyped one, it is issued out of vengeance, as the petitioner was trying to help the friend, whose wife was harassed by the Police personnel, details of which are set out in para 10 of the petition; that the family of the externee consisting of his wife and three children is left without shelter and is living in fear and frustration. The learned advocate contended that there is a delay in passing the order of externment inasmuch as the cases which are relied upon are of the year 2001-02. Whereas the order is passed on 24th June 2003. In support of this contention the learned advocate relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chothmal Sagansingh Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1988 (2) GLH 439. The said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The proposition laid down by the decision is that, 'when there is delay in passing order of externment, after closing the arguments in respect of Show Cause Notice, and such delay is not properly explained, externment order is liable to be quashed'. In the present case after the Show Cause Notice was issued under section 59(1)(2) full opportunity was given by allowing the externee to keep his advocate present on 13.06.2003. Though it is not stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner, assuming that hearing took place on that very day, i.e. 13.06.2003, order is passed on 24.06.2003. Thus, there is no delay in passing the order of externment. Hence this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner.