SABBIRMIYA ALLARAKHA SAIYED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether while passing the final order, in view of clear discretion left open to the Externing Authority under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, viz., to prefer either of the two alternative preventative remedies, viz., to direct the person against whom notice under Sec. 59 of the Act has been issued; in the first instance, to conduct himself in a well behaved orderly manner as a lawabiding citizen and for that purpose, by taking a surety bond and imposing some additional reasonable terms and conditions or in the second instance, to remove him out of the concerned area, it is duty bound to briefly indicate the reasons particularly in case where it prefers to pass an order imposing extreme preventive remedy of ordering removal out of the area" ? This in short is the question that arises for consideration in the context and background of circumstances enumerated hereunder.

(2.) Sabbirhussain Allarakha Saiyed, the petitioner herein is a resident of Baroda. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Baroda issued a notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") against him in substance alleging that he was a head-strong, ferocious, anti-social and that during the period from April 1991 to May 1992, he was involved in as many as three criminal offences registered at Baroda City Police Station under Chapter-XVI of the Indian Penal Code, out of which, in one case, he was acquitted while the other two cases were pending. In response to this notice, petitioner submitted a written statement, in substance, denying all the allegations levelled against him. It is further the case of the petitioner that in none of the three cases so registered against him in the respective FIRs, he is either named or any description about him is given and that he has been just falsely implicated on the basis of some suspicion. Further according to the petitioner, he was a poor man and the only bread-winner of his family comprising of wife, three minor children and old ailing parents, out of which his mother was bed-ridden with two to three heart-attacks. Not resting satisfied by merely filing this written statement, petitioner also in support of his defence examined two respectable citizens, viz., Abdulmiya Ahmedmiya and Prakash Bhupendra Thaker, both businessmen, certifying that the petitioner was a person with good character. On the basis of these submissions, firstly praying for discharge of notice issued against him, the petitioner in the alternative has also further prayed that in case if the Externing Authority was not inclined to give him a clean bill and discharge the notice issued against him, then in that case, instead of passing the extreme order of externment, a surety bond for his good behaviour for two years alongwith some reasonable terms and conditions may be accepted.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid material on record, the Deputy Commissioner of Police rejecting the plea of the petitioner, ultimately by an order dt. 9-3-1994 externed him from the area under his jurisdiction and the adjoining districts as stated in detail in the show cause notice issued under Sec. 59 of the Act. This order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police was challenged by way of Appeal before the State Government, which in turn was ultimately confirmed by the order dated 26-4-1994, giving rise to the present petition.