CHOTHMAL SAGANSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for issuing an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and confirmed by the State of Gujarat in its Home Department. The Police Superintendent. K Division Ahmedabad City issued notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner herein mentioning the following allegations:

(2.) It is further alleged in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous and fanatic person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specific mention in the notice that the petitioner was doing all these activities at the corner of Ramchandra Colony; Near Omnagar Crossing; Near Omnagar Sharda School; Near Chamanpura Sagar Hotel; Near Ghee-vali Chawli and Near Omnagar Muslim Society. All this area according to the show cause notice comes under the Shahibaug Police Station jurisdiction. The show cause notice has further mentioned specifically that these activities in the above said localities are being done by the petitioner since November 1985. On these allegations the petitioner submitted his explanation and the same was heard by the Police Superintendent. The original show cause notice was given on 17-6-1986. The Superintendent of Police got the explanation from the petitioner as early as in September 1987. By the end of September 1987 all the witnesses have been examined and the argument were also over during September 1987 itself. The Superintendent of Police sent the report to the externing authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City only on 19-2-1988. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who is the externing authority has passed the order of externment only on 11-4-1988. The said order passed by the externing authority was confirmed by the Home Department on 13 The externing authority not only externed the petitioner from the jurisdiction under the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City but also from Ahmedabad (Rural) Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years. This was confirmed by the appellate authority also.

(3.) Mr. Saiyed learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind in passing the said externment order and as such the same has to be quashed. Learned (Counsel further submitted that there is vagueness in mentioning the place of occurrence and also the period during which committed the offence. Finally the learned Counsel contended that there is inordinate delay in sending the report by the Superintendent of Police to the externing authority and as such the order of externment has to be quashed.