N. M. MIABHOY, M. U. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 1st July 1963 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch Ahmedabad the second respondent and an appellate order passed by the State of Gujarat the first respondent on 25th of October 1963. The original order passed by the second respondent was confirmed by the first respondent. The original order was passed under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 (hereafter called the Act ). By that order second respondent directed petitioner to remove himself from the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous District of Ahmedabad Rural by railway or road within two days from the date of the order and he further directed petitioner not to return to or to enter in the area of the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous District of Ahmedabad Rural for a period of one year from the date of the order without the permission in writing from the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City or the first respondent.

( 2 ) THE Superintendent of Police `b Division Ahmedabad City served petitioner with a notice bearing date 8th February 1963 on 12th February 1963 under sec 59 of the Act calling upon petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed from the City of Ahmedabad and the surrounding Districts on the ground that petitioner had to his discredit two convictions recorded on 24th November 1953 and 31st August 1957 under various sections mentioned in the notice and on the further ground that petitioner had after the aforesaid convictions were recorded on or about 28th January 1963 at about 10-45 p. m. committed an assault on a Police Constable and given him a fist blow on his face thereby breaking one of the constables teeth. The petitioner showed cause in response to this notice. The papers were then submitted to the second respondent and the second respondent by his order dated 1st July 1963 recorded the finding that petitioner was convicted as aforesaid and that he was satisfied that petitioner was likely again to engage himself in the commission of offences similar to those for which he had already been convicted. On these grounds second respondent passed the impugned order. Petitioner went in appeal under sec. 60 of the Act to the first respondent and that appeal was dismissed by the first respondent on 25th of October 1963. The present writ petition was filed against the two respondents in this Court by petitioner on 28th of October 1963. In this petition petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing or setting aside the order passed by the-two respondents.

( 3 ) MISS Shah supports the present petition on the following three grounds:-- (1) that the original order dated 1st July 1963 was bad inasmuch as it did not specify the route by which petitioner was to leave the jurisdiction of the second respondent; (2) that the second respondent was influenced by extraneous evidence in reaching his final conclusion; and (3) that the convictions were stale and could not have been made the ground for an order under sec. 57 of the Act.

( 4 ) IN our judgment there is no substance in any of the aforesaid submissions of Miss Shah and the present petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.

( 5 ) THE first submission of Miss Shah is based upon the latter part of sec. 57 of the Act the relevant part of which is as follows:--". . . . the Commissioner may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction. . . . . . by such route. . . . . . as the said officer may prescrib e. . . . "the submission of Miss Shah is that the provision in this part of sec. 57 relating to the prescription of the route is a mandatory provision and a breach of that provision must necessarily result in the nullification of tie impugned order. Therefore the contention of Miss Shah is mainly based upon the validity or otherwise of this submission of hers that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document