Navnit Hiralal Soni vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application.

B. The Honourable Court may be pleased to allow this Special Criminal Application by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set

aside the externment order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and order dated 27.5.2019 passed by

the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar.

C. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation

of externment order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and order dated 27.5.2019 passed by the Joint

Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar.

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.â€​

The case of the petitioner is that a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act on 7.2.2018 calling upon the

petitioner that in view of the offences which have been registered and mentioned in the show cause notice, why the petitioner should not be externed

for a period of 2 years from the areas of Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana. The said notice ultimately resulted

into an order of externment which was passed on 10.10.2018 and executed on 25.11.2018, whereby the petitioner is externed for a period of 2 years

from the aforesaid areas which are mentioned above.

This order passed by the authority is challenged by way of an appeal before the Home Department being Appeal No.221 of 2018. However,

according to the petitioner, without proper application of mind, straightway, an order of externment is confirmed by slightly modifying the same and it is

this order which has been passed by the appellate authority is made the subject matter of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Pursuant to the Rule having been issued on 27.8.2019, the matter has come up for consideration before this Court. Learned advocate for the

petitioner, has submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is not only unjust and arbitrary but, suffers from the vice of non-application of

mind. It has been submitted that the original order of externment itself is arbitrary in view of the fact that the same is passed on the basis of 2

offences which have been registered. Hence, since the original order and the action itself was not sustainable, the appellate authority ought to have

considered the same in the right spirit. It has been further submitted that those two cases are, on the contrary, pending before the Court for trial and,

therefore, the order of the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted that there is a considerable delay of

about 8 months in issuance of notice and the said delay is not explained so far. The petitioner is aged about 34 years and doing manual labour work

and is not harden criminal and hence, proper application of mind ought to have been made before passing an order. Hence, a request is made to set

aside the same, in the interest of justice.

Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP, has vehemently opposed the petition, mainly on the ground that the appellate authority has passed a detailed order, after

strong application of mind and after full-fledged grant of appropriate opportunity, as required and the order is supported by cogent reasons. Hence,

such exercise of power which is well within the scope of authority, the same may not be disturbed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. On the

contrary, learned APP has submitted that a balanced view is taken by the appellate authority as in respect of other contingent districts, the order is

quashed and set aside. Hence, no case is made out of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that the original

order is substantially varied by the appellate authority in exercise of power vested in it and the order in question is appearing a detailed one, well

supported by cogent reasons and while exercising appellate jurisdiction, every material appears to have been considered and only thereafter, a

conclusion is arrived at and as such, such exercise of jurisdiction is not possible to be construed as perverse in any form.

The Court is also of the opinion that all the statements which have been relied upon by externing authority have been analyzed by the appellate

authority and having found that externment is expedient in the interest of justice, the appellate authority has passed a detailed order. Hence, the Court

is of the opinion that such exercise is not possible to be construed even an irregularity or beyond the scope of authority. Accordingly, no case is made

out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Additionally, while coming to this conclusion, the Court has also kept in mind the scope of extraordinary jurisdiction as enlisted by series of

decisions. One of such decision which is kept in mind is in case of Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374

(Para.6 and 7). Hence, in the absence of any material irregularity or perversity, this Court is of the opinion that since the appellate authority has

exercised its discretion well within the bounds of authority and the discretion is well supported by cogent reasoned, no case is made out by the

petitioner. Hence, the petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rule is discharged.