P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) IN these two petitions by two brothers who are sought to be externed from the place where they reside and carry on their avocation of life in Malia in Amreli taluka of Amreli district the externment orders passed against them by the authority and as confirmed by the Secretary Home Department have been brought in challenge.

( 2 ) A few relevant facts may be noticed at the outset. The petitioners are residing at village Malia in Amreli taluka of Amreli district. They are true brothers. Both of them were served with show cause notices of even date viz. 8-11-1983 under sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The said notices have been issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Amreli. It was alleged in the said notices that the petitioners were head-strong and quarrelsome persons and on the allegations mentioned in the show cause notices it was thought necessary to extern them in the exercise of powers under secs. 56 57 and 63 of the Act from the local limits of Amreli and contiguous districts of Bhavnagar and Rajkot for a period of one year. It was further alleged that if they were not removed from the said areas then they and their associates will continue such activities illegally through their agents and would engage in violent and harmful activities.

( 3 ) BOTH the petitioners filed written replies to these notices and tried to show how they were not liable to be externed and how notices proceeded on wrong allegations. Along with the replies a list of witnesses was also furnished. Thereafter the competent authority held inquiries as enjoined by sec. 69 of the Act permitted the petitioners to examine witnesses in defence and ultimately by two separate orders of even date viz. 25-6-1984 ordered that the petitioners should be externed for a period of one year from the receipt of the order and that both of them should go out of the areas within the local limits of Amreli and contiguous districts of Bhavnagar and Rajkot for that period. Thereafter the petitioners challenged these orders by filing appeals under sec. 60 of the Act before the appellate authority. The Deputy Secretary Home Department State of Gujarat who heard the appeals dismissed the same and confirmed the orders passed against each of the petitioners. It is in these circumstances that both the petitioners have landed in this court by way of the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THEY were admitted to final hearing and ad-interim stay of the impugned orders was granted. In response to the rules issued in these petitions the respondents have filed their affidavits-in-reply of Mr. J. C. Rathod formerly working as sub-divisional Magistrate Amreli who was the externing authority. In the affidavit-in-reply the contentions raised in the petitions are tried to be combated. At the time of final hearing of these petitions Mr. Padival for the petitioners raised various contentions in support of these petitions. Amongst them one contention which in our view goes to the root of the matter was to the effect that the show cause notices issued to the petitioners under sec. 59 were totally vague with the result that the petitioners were kept guessing as to what were the allegations which they had to meet. That neither the period nor the localities were mentioned during which and in which respectively the petitioners were alleged to have indulged into the said so-called nefarious activities. According to Mr. Padival this introduced a vital flaw in the entire proceeding. Consequently the externment orders which ultimately culminated against the petitioners were null and void. As we are inclined to accept the aforesaid contention we have not thought it fit to consider other contentions which were tried to be submitted by Mr. Padival for the petitioners in support of the petitions.

( 5 ) SO far as the aforesaid contention about vagueness of the show cause notices is concerned it will be in the fitness of things to reprodu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document