MANISH ALIAS JOHN GOPALBHAI SHAH Vs. DY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the externee against whom an externment order was passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-I, Ahmedabad City and which is confirmed by the appellate authority. The petitioner was subjected to show-cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act by which he was called upon to show-cause as to why the externment order should not be passed. The notice was issued under Section 59 on 15.09.2003. In the show-cause notice it is mentioned that the authority has tentatively taken a decision to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from Ahmedabad Rural as well as Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Kheda districts by exercising the powers under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In the show-cause notice the particulars about the allegations levelled against the petitioner are given and according to the same the activities of the petitioner are dangerous as it is alleged that he is keeping dangerous arms with him from the areas mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice by his reply dated 8.10.2003. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order of externment. The Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-I, Ahmedabad City passed the impugned order on 3.6.2005. The said order is finding place at Annexure-B. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner is ordered to be externed from Ahmedabad Police Commissionerate area, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the externee. The aforesaid order was challenged by way of appeal before the appellate authority. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, who heard the said appeal by his order dated 5th January 2006 partly allowed the said appeal and modified the order by reducing the externment period from two years to one year. The Appellate Authority has also modified the order further by restricting the externment areas to Ahmedabad Police Commissionerate area as well as Ahmedabad Rural. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid order.

(2.) Learned advocate, Mr Ashish Dagli for the petitioner submitted that there is a gross delay in passing the externment order as the show-cause notice was issued under Section 59 on 15.09.2003 and the reply was given by the externee on 8.10.2003 and order of externment was passed on 3rd June 2005 as according to him even after the reply the first authority has taken a time of more than one year and eight months in passing the order of externment. He submitted that the authority could have very well passed the order of externment immediately if at all the the authority was of the opinion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public order. Yet, the order of externment was passed after more than one and half year of filing of the reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice issued by the authority under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The said point is taken by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the petition. It is averred in the said paragraph that the order of externment is required to be set aside on the ground of unreasonable delay in passing the order.

(3.) No affidavit-in-reply is filed opposing the petition and therefore the delay has remained unexplained. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr Gohil, after perusing the file which is available with him, has submitted that the petitioner-externee has sought adjournments from time to time and therefore the delay has occasioned. However, the particulars in this behalf as to for how many times the externee had asked for time are not placed on record. Even assuming that on few occasions the externee might have sought for time, the authority should have refused the demand for frequent adjournments. It is required to be noted that the object of passing of the externment order is to prevent the petitioner at the earliest from carrying out his activities in a particular area.