AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of externment dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No. 1 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 2 in Externment Appeal No. 187 of 2009 dated 20.2.2010 (Annexure-E) on the grounds set out in the application.
Learned advocate Mr. Bukhari referred to the original order as well as the order passed in appeal and submitted that about 14 months have passed as against the period of two years for which the order has been passed and therefore considering the grounds mentioned and his family circumstances, the present petition may be allowed.
Alternatively, it was submitted that the order may be modified as now only six months remain.
Learned advocate Mr. Bukhari also referred to and relied upon the judgment of tis Court reported in Haiderali Babubhai Masani Vs. J.D. Joshi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva and Others,
Learned APP Mr. Mengdey referred to the impugned order as well as the order passed in appeal and submitted about the activities and the headstrong behaviour of the petitioner affecting the law and order. He has submitted that in fact the appellate authority, respondent No. 2, has modified the original order of externment from other areas like Navsari, Narmada, Tapi, Valsad and the order is now only confined to Surat City and Surat Rural and therefore the present petition may not be entertained.
In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained or not.
Having perused the original order as well as the order in appeal, the appellate authority has also considered all the relevant factors and therefore it has been suitably modified. The reliance placed by learned advocate Mr. Bukhari on the judgment in the case of Haiderali Babubhai Masani (supra) would not apply as in that case the offences were different and there was some family dispute, whereas the facts which reflect in the present order are different which affects law and order.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority does not call for any interference and the present petition deserves to be rejected and accordingly stand rejected. Rule is discharged.