MUKTABEN RAJESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16-4-2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gondal, as also the order dated 3-9-2009 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar externing the petitioner for a period of one year. The facts in short are that a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why she may not be externed under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act for a term of one year from the area under the jurisdiction of Rajkot Rural, Rajkot City, Junagadh, Jamnagar, Porbandar and Amreli Districts for the reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner did not remain present on the date fixed for hearing. Hence, the respondent No. 2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gondal, passed an order externing the petitioner for a period of one year. Hence, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 3-9-2009 which is giving rise to the present petition.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned advocate for the petitioner has raised so many contentions in his petition. However, at the time of arguments, he has restricted his arguments on the period of externment. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a widow as her husband passed away in 2006. Her one kidney was removed in the year 2007. Relevant medical papers are produced on record. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to maintain her three children, who are presently studying and there is no earning member in the family to look after them.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only on the point of period of externment. Hence, I would not like to reproduce or discuss the entire evidence which are on record as the same remained unchallenged. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be met if the period of externment imposed on the petitioner is reduced from one year to nine months.