KAMLESHBHAI AMRUTBHAI PATNI Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER SHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the externee has challenged the order dated 09. 10. 2007 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 07. 02. 2008 passed by respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE externee has challenged the order of externment on various Counts. However, learned Advocate for the externee, has restricted his arguments to the aspect of delay in passing the order of externment, only. He has submitted that the order of externment passed by the externing authority is bad in law on the ground that show-cause notice was issued on 25. 04. 2007 whereas the order of externment was passed by the Authority on 09. 10. 2007 i. e. there is delay of about six months in passing the order of externment which is not explained by the Authorities. Apart from that the externment authority has failed to appreciate the fact that after 2006 no offence is registered against the externee. He has further submitted that the externing authority has also not considered the provisions and objects of the Act, and hence, in view of the unexplained delay of about six months in passing the order of externment, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HEARD. Considering rival side contentions the only question that needs to be addressed by this Court is whether there was delay in passing the order of externment after issuing show-cause notice to the externee or not. (1) In my view externing authority before passing the order of externment, must satisfy subjectively that no witnesses are willing to come forward to depose against the externee. In the case on hand show-cause notice was issued on 25/4/2007 whereas the order of externment was passed on 9/10/2007. Therefore, there is a delay of about six months which has not been explained by the authority while passing the order of externment. It may also be noted that after 2006 no offence is registered against the externee and even the externee had filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 raising the very same grounds, but, the same were not considered by the respondent No. 2. On the contrary, by its order dated 7/2/2008 the respondent No. 2 confirmed the order of externment passed by respondent No. 1 against the externee which shows non consideration of these vital points by the respondent No. 2. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed partly.