MERUBHAI DEVABHAI CHAVDA RABARI 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 30-4-2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Junagadh, as also the order dated 18-12-2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar externing the petitioner for a period of two years. The facts in short are that a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be externed under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act for a term of two years from the area under the jurisdiction of Junagadh, Amreli, Porbander, Rajkot City and Rajkot Rural Districts for the reasons mentioned therein. He submitted his reply to the respondent No. 2 authority. However, the respondent No. 1-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Junagadh passed an order externing the petitioner for a period of two years. Hence, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 18-12-2008 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 applicant, Mr. Chetan Pandya that six offences under the Prohibition Act were registered against the petitioner and in five offences, present petitioner pleaded guilty and only fine of Rs. 50/- was imposed and matter was settled in the Lok Adalat.

(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. This Court is also in complete agreement with the reasons adopted and the conclusions arrived at by the respondent authorities in the impugned orders so far as the conviction of the present appellant is concerned. Considering the aforesaid 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 two years to one year.