BADELAL RAMLAKHAN PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to quash the orders dated 18. 11. 2006 and 16. 1. 2007, Annexures 'b' and 'c' respectively passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone 5, Ahmedabad City in exercise of powers conferred by section 56 of Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar whereby the present petitioner has been externed from the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad and the contingency districts of Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of externment by preferring appeal before the Joint Secretary, Home Department and the said appeal was partly allowed and the term of externment of 2 years was reduced to one year. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent-State.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the authorities without considering the basic object of the Bombay Police Act and the basic requirements for passing of the order of externment that there is likelihood of disturbance of the public order by the alleged activities of the petitioner. He also submitted that the authorities have gravely erred in not considering the fact that there is no disturbance to the maintenance of public order by the alleged activities of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that the allegations made by the respondent authority in the show cause notice that the petitioner is a dangerous person of criminal minded nature and always possesses deadly weapons are totally false and frivolous. That for the alleged activities of the petitioner, only one offence is lodged before the Vatva Police Station which is pending enquiry. Therefore, the submission of the learned advocate is that the order of externment passed by the respondent authorities is clear non-application of mind and thus the said orders are required to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the show cause notice came to be issued on 15. 12. 2005 and petitioner has filed reply on 13. 2. 2006 and order of externment was came to be passed on 18. 11. 2006. Thus, the order of externment is passed after 9 months and no explanation for the delay has been stated. and on this ground also the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.