ABBAS HUSAIN Vs. DY POLICE COMMR SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Criminal Application is to quash and set aside the show cause notice (Annexure 'A' to the Special Criminal Application), the impugned order of externment (Annexure 'B' to the Special Criminal Application) and the order in appeal (Annexure 'C' to the Special Criminal Application).

(2.) The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act stating that he has committed acts coming under S. 56(a) and (b) and as such he has to be externed from the jurisdiction of the Surat City Police Commissioner, Surat Rural and contiguous area of Broach and Valsad Districts for a period of two years from the date of the proposed externment order. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice are as follows :

(3.) We have carefully gone through the records in this case and also other particulars including the order passed by the externing authority and the appellate authority. The allegations in the notice clearly spell out offences contemplated under section 56(a) and (b). It is unnecessary for us to repeat those allegations since we have already extracted them in paragraph supra. Suffice it to say that allegation No. 7 of the allegations in the show cause notice refers to the period of committing the offences mentioned in the show cause notice. We are not able to appreciate the argument of Mr. Kapadia to the effect that the period mentioned therein refers only to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the allegations in the show cause notice. A reading of allegation No. 7 in the show cause notice it clearly spells out that it refers to all the allegations contained in the show cause notice and allegation No. 7 only clarifies and reiterates the offences mentioned in allegations Nos. 1 to 6 of the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice. Thus, we are not able to appreciate both the arguments to the effect that the allegations do not spell out the offences, both under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act and that the period has not been mentioned in the show cause notice regarding the offences committed by the petitioner concerned. We are also not able to appreciate the argument that the period refers only to the allegation under clause 7 and not to the allegations in clauses 1 to 6. Thus, we are of the definite view that the show cause notice specifically states the period during which the offences mentioned in the allegations 1 to 7 have been committed by the petitioner herein and allegation 8 of the show cause notice clearly gives the area in which the petitioner is committing such offences. Those areas have been already extracted while we have extracted the allegations in the show cause notice in the paragraph supra. The argument of Mr. Kapadia to the effect that there is no specific conclusion by the externing authority to the effect that the petitioner is a nuisance and as such he has to be externed since he is a dangerous and strong-headed person cannot be appreciated in view of the clear averments in the show cause notice to the effect that the petitioner commits dangerous activities and witnesses do not come forward to give testimony of such activities out of fear for their person and property. Apart from these specific allegations, the notice as such clearly makes out that the petitioner is a dangerous and strong-headed person who is a source of nuisance to the locality. Coming to the question of delay, we have carefully gone through the averments of the petitioner in paragraph NN of his petition. This is countered in the reply given by the respondent concerned at paragraph 21 of his reply. It is a clear case where the authorities have taken 7 months and 17 days subsequent to the argument, to pass the externment order. The reason given by the authority concerned is that the prior person who heard the argument had gone to Hyderabad for training and thereafter the person who passed the externment order got it assigned to him and that he passed the externment order only on 30-12-1985. There is an inordinate delay apart from the fact that the person who passed the externment order has not even heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner herein. Definitely such an order passed so late as this will vitiate the externment order passed by the authorities concerned. No doubt in this case the appellate authority has directed only the execution of the bond. Even this, is to keet peace in that locality as a preventive measure and this is available to the authorities concerned as per section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. It can either remove the person concerned outside the area or direct that person to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm. If such a delay is fatal for the externment order, such delay is fatal also to an order for getting a bond as provided under Section 56 of the Act. Such preventive actions whether it is by externment or by getting a bond should be taken immediately and any inordinate delay will definitely vitiate such action taken as a preventive measure. Inasmuch as we have found that the delay in passing the order is inordinate and that too by a person who has not heard the arguments, will definitely vitiate the order passed by the authorities concerned.