IMPORTANT POINT
Mechanical order of externment simply repeating the words of section 57(c) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 cannot be allowed to take effect.

JUDGMENT

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. - This Special Criminal Application is filed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the order of externment and confirmation which is at Annexures 'B' and 'c' of this petition. The Authority concerned issued show cause notice under section 57(C) of the Bombay Police Act, alleging that the petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment in three prohibition cases on 4-3-1987, 9-7-1987 and 4-11-1987 respectively. These are all offences under sections 66(1) (b) and 85(1) (3) of the Prohibition Act. Imprisonment is also for a period of one day, one day and till rising of the Court. The fine is also Rs. 120/-, 100/ and 150/- respectively for the above said cases. On these facts, the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City and in that it is observed as follows:

"Since you are sentenced to imprisonment in three offences as mentioned above under Bombay Prohibition Act, during the year 1987 and again you are involved in similar type of offence, I am satisfied that you will again commit offences of similar nature. I have, therefore, proposed to extern you from Surat City for a period of two years."

2. No doubt, the said show cause notice also states that the externment will not only be from Surat City, but also the neighbouring districts of Bharuch, Valsad and Surat rural areas also for a period of two years. The very same observation is made in the externment order also for externing the petitioner. In. an appeal under section 60 of the Act, the Government of Gujarat has confirmed the externment order except to the modification to the effect that the externment is only from Surat district limits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above said Special Criminal Application. Section 57(c) of the Bombay Police Act reads as follows:

57. If a person has been convicted.

(c) thrice, of an offence within a period of three years, under any of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or under section 4 or 12-A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, or under section 4 or 12-A of that Act as in force in the Saurashtra area or the Kutch area of the State of Bombay, or under section 4 of the Gambling Act, or section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 as in force in the Vidarbha region of the State of Bombay, the Commissioner, the District Magistrate of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction (or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto) by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or rectum to the area (or the area and such contiguous districts or part thereof, as the case may be) from which he was directed to remove himself.

Explanation: - For the purpose of this Section "an offence similar to that for which a person was convicted" shall mean-

(i) in the case of a person convicted of an offence mentioned in clause (a), an offence falling under any of the Chapters of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in that clause, and

(ii) in the case of a person convicted of an offence mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) an offence falling under the provisions of the Acts mentioned respectively in the said clauses. .

3. It is clear from the aforesaid fact that the authority has mechanically applied its mind without coming to the conclusion as to how the petitioner is menace to the society and will affect the public tranquillity if he is not externed as ordered by the externing authority. Such type of mechanical order has been criticised by various judgment of this High Court. In the case of Mohammadhusan v. Dy. Police Commissioner and others1, the Bench