NARAYAN VANMALIDAS VALAND Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BARODA CITY
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
NARAYAN VANMALIDAS VALAND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,BARODA CITY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This petition is to quash and set aside the order of externment dated 31-1-1987 which is Annexure;A to the petition. In this case the order of externment was passed as early as on 31-1-1987. In the year 1985 the petitioner herein was detained under the provisions of PASA. The said order of detention according to the petitioner was set aside by this Court by order dated 18 3-1986. Subsequent to this order releasing the petitioner from detention the order of externment was passed on 31-1-1987 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from Baroda City Baroda Rural Kheda Bharuch and Panchmahals districts. The said order of externment was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 herein and the respondent No. 2 the State Government has confirmed the said order by order dated 8-5-1987. On 22-5-1987 there was another order of detention under PASA by the Commissioner of Police Baroda City. the said order of detention was challenged by the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 588 of 1987. The said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner at that stage as the petitioner was made known that the order of externment was kept in abeyance and the respondent No. 1 wants to implement the order of detention against the petitioner. Hence the petitioner challenged the order of detention in Special Criminal Application No. 932 of 1987 and this Court was pleased to set aside the order of detention on 1-4-1988. After the detention order was set aside the respondent No. 1 herein wants to implement the order of externment dated 31-1-1987. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application challenging the externment order dated 31-1-1987 on various grounds.
(2.)The petitioner states that the order of externment has to be quashed on the ground of mala fide and arbitrariness. According to the petitioner respondent No. 1 is harassing the petitioner by passing detention orders and also exterminate order. It is the say of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 wants to see the petitioner behind the barssomehow or the other. Further according to the petitioner the externment order Is sought to be executed after the lapse of one year and three months. Thus according to the petitioner the respondent No. 1 due to mala fide intention passed the order of externment just to see that the freedom of the petitioner is curtailed.
(3.)The petitioner further submits that there is inordinate delay in passing the externment order. In spite of the fact that Superintendent of Police has sent papers after examining the witnesses and hearing the arguments to the externing authority on 18-8-1986 the externment order was passed by the externing authority only on 31-1-1987. Thus there is a delay of five months which definitely vitiates the order of externment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.