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 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone - 4, Ahmedabad (City) dated 18.12.2008 and the order passed by the respondent No. 4 - the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar in Externment Appeal No. 224/2009 dated 12.03.2010 externing the petitioner from five districts such as Ahmedabad (City), Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana for a period of two years for the reasons stated in the application on the grounds set out in the memo of petition inter alia that there is inordinate delay in passing the externment order as the show cause notice was issued on 22.07.2008 and the externment order came to be passed on 18.12.2008. It is also contended that such order is passed with malafide intention, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Gautam Gadhvi for the petitioner has submitted that after the show cause notice was issued on 22.07.2008, the order of externment was passed on 18.12.2008 and, hence, there is delay in passing the externment order. In support of his submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 1992(2) GLH 457 in case of Santosh Ramprasad Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Criminal Branch, Ahmedabad and Anr. He has further submitted that the rules of natural justice have been violated. Learned Counsel, Mr. Gadhvi submitted that in fact, no cases are registered for the district of Kheda and Mehsana and, therefore, the externment order could not have been passed for all such districts.
Learned A.P.P., Ms. Mini Nair, however, resisted the present petition. She referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, ''E'' Division, Ahmedabad City and pointedly referred to the details with regard to time taken by the petitioner or his advocate and submitted that he was proceeded and the order of externment has been passed, which cannot be said that there is delay as sought to be canvased by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was also submitted that the judgment referred to and relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present case and there is no violation of rules of natural justice. She submitted that two cases were pending and, hence, it cannot be said that there is no application of mind while passing such order, which has been confirmed by the authorities.
In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered that the present petition can be entertained or not.
It is required to be noted that though the submissions have been made with regard to delay in passing the order, same has been sufficiently explained. In fact, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the authority had taken time either to file reply or for some other reasons and, therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission with regard to delay relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1992(2) GLH 457 in case of Santosh Ramprasad Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.
However, the submission, which has been much emphasized that the order of externemnt has been passed in respect of the areas or the district where no case is registered against the petitioner is required to be considered. There are three cases registered against the petitioner, however, admittedly, no case is registered in the districts of Kheda and Mehsana and, therefore, to that extend, the externment order cannot be sustained. Therefore, considering the facts on record, the interest of justice would be meet if the present petition deserves to be allowed in part.
In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned externment order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-4, Ahmedabad (City) dated 18.12.2008 as confirmed vide order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the respondent No. 4 - the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar in Externment Appeal No. 224/2009 are hereby confirmed in respect of Ahmedabad (City), Ahmedabad (Rural) and Gandhinagar district. However, the aforesaid both orders are hereby quashed and set aside in respect of Kheda district and Mehsana district. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.