(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for rival parties, this petition is finally heard at the stage of admission. The petitioner has put to challenge the order of externment dated 27.8.2013 under section 56(1) and 56(2) of the Bombay Police Act. It is not in dispute that the process of externment was initiated on 14.8.2012 and liberty of the petitioner till the time the impugned order came to be passed was never curtailed. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and is dangerous for the society at large. The submissions made by the respondents, no doubt, may have some substance but then in the matters like the present one, it is expected of the respondents to pass an order within a reasonable period lest the very object of initiation of proceedings should disappear.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1851/2011 (Sk. Dayan v. State) dated 23.09.2011 contending that in a similar type of case the action of externment has not been upheld. In the said case, the proposal was submitted on 23rd May, 2009 for externment and the order was actually made on 21st September, 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such an order could not be countenanced in the light of the facts of that case. We do not find any difference in the facts of the present case and the said case cited before us. An objection is raised by the learned Addl. P.P. for the respondents that there is an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of appeal which has not been resorted to by the petitioner. We do not think that the said preliminary objection would come in the way of the petitioner in the light of the fact that liberty of the citizen is the paramount consideration and secondly the uncontroverted facts about the period spent by the State in passing the impugned order. We therefore, do not accept the preliminary objection. In the result, we make the following order: