RAJU MAFABHAI RABARI 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 impugned orders dated 7. 5. 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 exerning the petitioner for a period of two years from Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts in exercise of the powers conferred under section 10 (2) read with section 56 (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the order passed by the respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 23. 11. 2007.

(2.) HEARD the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for for the respondent State.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the show cause notice issued by the externing authority is very vague and the period of offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is not mentioned. The particulars about the place and time of alleged incidents are also not given and the allegations are vague and general in nature. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to make an effective representation against the said show cause notice and therefore, the impugned order of externment is clear non-application of mind and the said orders are required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his case, he has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Haresh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anajar (2003 Cri. L. J. 4379) wherein the court held that the authority has considered the statements of the witnesses in the final order for which no reference in the show cause notice was given and the externment order was quashed and set aside.