(1.) THE petitioner, who is the externee, has challenged the order of externment dated 31.7.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Hadpari Case No. 161 of 2012 -13 as well as order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 555 of 2013. The Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone III, Surat City issued a notice on 22.12.2012 under section 59 of the Act to the petitioner detenue inter alia alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specific allegation in the notice that the petitioner detenue was doing all these activities with the help of his associates within the jurisdiction of Limbayat Police Station.
(2.) IN response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. After examining the explanation, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order of externment on 31.7.2013 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area falling in the Commissionerate of Surat City, Surat Rural, Bharuch, Navsari, Bharuch, Valsad and Tapi. The petitioner preferred appeal under section 60 of the Act. The said order of externment was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.12.2013, whereby the externing authority was pleased to reduce the period of externment from two years to six months and further it was restricted to the limit of Commissionerate of Surat city.
(3.) A specific point is taken by the petitioner in this petition contending that the order of externment has been passed after lapse of seven months from the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 22.12.2013 Therefore, the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to extern the petitioner after such lapse of time and therefore, the same is without any application of mind. Not only that the alleged offence vide I. -C.R. No. 245 of 2012 was registered on 7.11.2012 and from the date of such offence, the impugned order came to be passed on 31.7.2013 i.e. after lapse of about eight months.