SABIRKHAN YUSUFKHAN PATHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the notice dated 13.8.2008 issued by Assistant Police Commissioner, "G" Division, Ahmedabad City-respondent no.3 [Annexure:A], order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-6, Ahmedabad City, [Annexure:E] and the order dated dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Additional Secretary, Home Department-respondent no.1 in Externment Appeal No. 120 of 2009.

(2.) It is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Banna Datta appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in three offences as per notice at Annexure:A to the petition. First offence mentioned is Ist CR No. 79 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 186, 332, 336, 353, 506[2] of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135[i] of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Second offence registered against the petitioner as mentioned in the notice is Prohibition CR No. 5083/07 for the offence punishable under Sections 66[b], 65[a][e] and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, while third offence registered against the petitioner is Prohibition CR No. 5055/08 for the offence punishable under sections 66[b], 65[a][e] and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Learned advocate submitted that the competent authority has considered stale cases of 2005 and 2007 while the petitioner is already acquitted in the prohibition case being Prohibition CR No. 5055/08. Thus, there is complete non-application of mind by the competent authority in passing the externment order. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed and the notice dated 13.8.2008 issued by respondent no.3, order dated 4.4.2009 passed by Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-6, Ahmedabad City and the order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the respondent no.1 in Externment Appeal No. 120 of 2009 be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Ms. T.K. Patel, learned APP, representing the respondents, while opposing the writ petition and averments made therein, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authority and the competent authority has taken into consideration the entire material on the record of the case before passing the order of externment as provided under the Bombay Police Act and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, learned APP submitted that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of relief as prayed for in the petition and the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.