BABULAL CHAKUBHAI Vs. SAURASHTRA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is against the order of ex-ternment passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra, Under Section 47 (B) of the Saurashtra District Police (Amendment) Act, 1951.

(2.) A notice Under Section 47 (E) was served on the petitioner and after hearing his explanation and examining a witness produced by him the learned District Magistrate passed the above order on 29-7-52 ordering the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division by a specified route to Bhavnagar and not to reenter the said limits for a period of two years without permission in writing from the Government.

(3.) THE petitioner's learned advocate challenged the order on various grounds. His first objection was that the material allegations against the petitioner mentioned in the notice were vague and lacked sufficient particulars to enable him to give an effective and complete explanation. His second contention was that these allegations did not bring his case within the scope and ambit of Section 47 (B ). His third contention was that the order was bad as the inquiry, which preceded the notice, was ex parte and that before making the order, the learned District Magistrate should have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by him. Some of the witnesses were Police Officers and it was contended that at least these officers should have been produced for the petitioner's cross-examination. It was further submitted that the evidence on which the learned District Magistrate relied was perjured evidence which was obtained by the police by intimidating and coercing the witnesses. The petitioner has filed affidavits of two of such witnesses in support of his contention. It was also contended that the petitioner had been denied the due process of law because he had preferred an appeal to the Government against the District Magistrate's order Under Section 47 (P) of the Act, but the Government had not only not disposed of the appeal but had not even acknowledged it. It was finally urged that a prosecution was pending against the petitioner in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Rajkot, and several prosecutions were started against him thereafter, and although the petitioner repeatedly requested for permission to return to Rajkot to answer the charges against him, the permission was not granted except after a long delay under unduly harsh conditions. The District Magistrate filed a return on behalf of the opponent State in which the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been answered. This return, it may be stated, does not answer the charge that the petitioner's appeal has not been acknowledged nor disposed of by the Government.