Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 271 (GUJ)

MANOJ JAYANTIBHAI VAVALIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-02-19

S.H.VORA

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner, who is the externee, has challenged the order of externment dated 19.8.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in Hadpari Case No.49 of 2013 as well as order dated 2.1.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.529 of 2013. 2. The Deputy Police Commissioner issued a notice on 29.11.2012 under section 59 of the Act to the petitioner detenue inter alia alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specific allegation in the notice that the petitioner detenue was doing all these activities with the help of his associates within the jurisdiction of concerned Police Station. 3. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. After examining the explanation, the respondent No.3 has passed the order of externment on 19.8.2013 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area falling in the Commissionerate of Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana. The petitioner preferred appeal under section 60 of the Act. The said order of externment was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 2.1.2014, whereby the externing authority was pleased to reduce the period of externment from two years to one year and further it was restricted to the limit of Commissionerate of Ahmedabad city. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that there is delay in passing the externment order passed by the externing authority and therefore, the order of externment should be quashed. It is also submitted by him that the authorities concerned have mechanically passed the order and externed the petitioner after the delay of nearly nine months. 5. A specific point is taken by the petitioner in this petition contending that the order of externment has been passed after lapse of nine months from the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 29.11.2012. Therefore, the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to exetern the petitioner after such lapse of time and therefore, the same is without any application of mind. 7. In court's considered opinion, there is much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to exetern the petitioner after such lapse of time and therefore, the same is without any application of mind. 7. In court's considered opinion, there is much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In externing a person which is in public interest, the authorities are expected to act promptly and if the matter is delayed, the same will exhibit that there is no urgent need and no necessity to extern a person from a particular locality or a district. The externment order restricts or curtails the freedom of the movement of a person concerned and therefore, any lapse/delay on the part of authority concerned cannot be permitted and the benefit will go to the party concerned and on that ground, the externee will be entitled to the benefit of quashing of such order of externment. 8. It is true that mere delay in passing externment order cannot be fatal to quash such an order, but in Court's opinion, delay must be explained. The preventive action should be taken immediately and any delay will definitely vitiate such an order. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The order of externment dated 19.8.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in Hadpari Case No.49 of 2013 as well as order dated 2.1.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.529 of 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.