NILESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in January, 2016 the Ankleshwar (Rural) Police Station has with secret information raided one place where they found three persons with liquor from one tempo. Out of three, one Mr. Manish Dayalbhai Vasava and Mr. Manish Vijalbhai Vasava were identified whereas third person was identified and ran away from the scene of offence. In connection with this offence, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner under Section 56(A) of the Gujarat Police Act whereby, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the respondent no. 2 authority for hearing and explanation on 30.06.2016. After considering the relevant material, the petitioner has been faced with an order of externment on 21.12.2016 passed in Externment Case No. 11 of 2016 which has made the subject matter of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. 1 On the aforesaid premise, the petition was originally entertained by the Court on 11.04.2017 whereby, rule was made returnable on 07.07.2017 and in the meantime interim relief was granted in terms of paragraph 15(B) and thereafter, with the said background the present petition has come up for final disposal before this Court today.

(3.) Mr. M. M. Saiyed, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that there is a clear non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authority in passing an order of externment. It has further been contended that while passing an order of externment the foundation which has been made is the offence registered under the Prohibition Act and therefore provisions of Section 56(A) cannot be resorted to, in the externment proceedings. In support of his argument, the learned advocate has relied upon the decision dated 06.03.2018 rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 476 of 2014 and has contended that by virtue of this, an order of externment is sustainable. Mr. Saiyed the learned advocate has further submitted that despite the fact that there is no material with respect to the areas which are consisting of Districts Bharuch, Vadodara, Navsari, Surat and Anand (City) and that too for a period of maximum two years and therefore the subjective satisfaction which has been arrived at is grossly vitiated and can be said to be perverse as there is no material whatsoever with respect to other districts. The learned advocate submitted that in fact in view of settled position of law on this issue by series of decisions, the order of externment may be quashed and set aside.