P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN - (1.) The petitioner has come forward the the present Special Criminal Application to quash the notice issued for externment which is Annexure A to the petition the order passed by the externing authority externing the petitioner which is Annexure `B to the petition and the order passed in appeal confirming the externment order which is Annexure C to the petition. The petitioner has been externed from the area under the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Police Commissioner and its contiguous Ahmedabad Rural Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years. The Superintendent of Police `C Division Ahmedabad City issued notice under sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act regarding externment of the petitioner under sec. 56(b) of the said Act stating that the petitioner is a dangerous and a fierce person and commits acts of force at Saraspur Potalia Talav Dhabavali Chawls corner near Anil Starch Mill Corner of Vire Bhagats Chawl Corner of Manilal Kadias Chawl near Manchas Masjid near Urinal near the Gate of Saraspur `E Colony Garden Opposite Manchas Masjid near No. D 17 of the Insurance Corporation Dispensary Corner of Saraspur Rang-Shala Compound Corner of Annapurna Society backside of Nutan Mill Bombay Housing and near Swimming Pool Saraspur Potalia Talav which are all under the limit of Shaher Kotada Police Station. It is further stated in the notice that such type of fierce activities are being perpetrated by the petitioner from June 1983 in the above said areas. The notice further states that the petitioner is robbing money from the people residing in the aforesaid areas and from the innocent people passing through the said areas by showing Rampuri Knife or Razor or by beating them by giving fist or kick blows or giving them threat of violence. It is further stated that he used to beat the innocent people passing through that area on the suspicion that either they are giving information to the Police about the petitioners illegal business of liquor or they are informant of the Police Alleging the above said acts of the petitioner the notice further states that the witnesses to the aforesaid acts are not willing to come forward to give evidence openly as they apprehend threat to their life and property. With the above said allegations the notice mentions that the authorities are intending to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from the area which is under the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad City Police Commissioner and its adjoining areas of Ahmedabad Rural Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Districts further stating that if the petitioner is not externed from these areas it is possible that the petitioner is likely to continue his violent activities through his associates and agents. The notice directed the petitioner to be present before the authority concerned at 4-00 P.M. on 13-8-1984 for explaining the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner examined as many as 24 witnesses before the Police Superintendent C Division Ahmedabad City and the Deputy Commissioner Traffic Branch Ahmedabad City after hearing the advocate for the Petitioner passed the externment order under sec. 565(b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 externing the petitioner from the areas mentioned in the notice for a period of two years from the date of order i.e. 8/05/1985 As against this order of externment the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government under sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act and the Deputy Secretary Home Department Gujarat Government confirmed the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under sec. 60(3) of the Act. It is to quash the notice the externment order and the appellate order referred above that the present Special Criminal Application is filed.
(2.) Mr. Shethna the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took as many as 13 points in order to quash the order of externment. Finally the learned counsel filed a draft amendment questioning the vires of secs. 56 & 59 of the Bombay Police Act. We have today allowed the said amendment and thought it fit that no notice is necessary to be issued to the Advocate General in this matter in as much as this question has been fully discussed and decided by our Full Bench in the case of Sarjubhaiya v. Dy. Commissioner of Police reported in XXV(1) 1984(1) G.L.R. 538. The Full Bench in that case following a series of decisions of the Supreme Court held that the challenge to vires of secs. 56 & 59 of the Bombay Police Act would not be permissible in the High Court in view of the matter having been considered by the Supreme Court on earlier occasion as a result of which consideration the sections have been held to be valid. In vieW of the above said Full Bench decision the contention of the learned counsel regarding the vires of secs. 56 & 59 as ultra vires the Constitution cannot be sustained. That is the reason why we have not acceded to the request of Mr. Bhatt Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who wanted time to put in reply for the said amendment prayed for.
(3.) As far as the present externment order is concerned the notice calling for explanation amply sets out the activity of the petitioner his area of operation and the period of operation. The authority who gave the notice gave full opportunity to the petitioner who examined 24 witnesses to spell out that he is not such a dangerous and desperate person in that locality. The externing authority who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police after taking into consideration the materials on record and after according facility to the counsel for the petitioner to submit his arguments externed the petitioner as referred in paragraph supra. Thus it is clear the authorities concerned have followed regular procedure after giving valid notice with the requisite particulars. Nevertheless the learned counsel has raised various grounds which we will deal with seriatim hereunder.;