P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application for quash- ing and setting aside the externment orders which are Annexures-B and C. The Sub-Divisional Mag- istrate Veraval issued notice on 5-12-1988 under Section 56 (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 alleging the following acts committed by the petitioner in Hudco Colony Vivekanand Colony and on the way leading to Hudco Colony situated at the sim of village Dari which are within the limits of Prabhaspatan Police Station. 1 You are forcibly collecting money from the innocent persons by detaining them those who are living in the aforesaid area of persons passing through the way and if they do not pay money you give threat to kill them. 2 You are consuming liquor and under the influence of liquor in public you are picking up quarrels and committing offences in relati on to property and undue liberty with women. 3 lf any person lodges a case against you you pressurise him to enter into compromise by giv- ing threat of killing the person concerned and create tense situation and as a result of which nobody is ready to give evidence against you in public.

( 2 ) IN this notice it has been stated that it is proposed to remove the petitioner from Junagadh Rajkot and Amreli Districts which are adjacent to each other for a period of two years. In the notice we also find that the petitioner is a dangerous and fierceful person and that the witnesses of the aforesaid incidents are afraid of safety of life and properly and as such they are not prepared to give evidence against the petitioner. There is a further allegation in the notice that if the petitioner is not removed from the aforesaid limits of the districts there are possibilities that the petitioner will continue the aforesaid activities.

( 3 ) THE explanation was called for and subsequently the externing authority passed an order of externment dated 11-4-1989 externing the petitioner from the limits of Junagadh Rajkot and Amreli districts for a period of two years from the next day of receipt of the said order. As against this order the petitioner preferred appeal under Section-60 of the Bombay Police Act and the Government of Gujarat in its Home Department confirmed the said order passed by the externing authority by its order dated 5-7-89.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has come forward by way of this habeas corpus petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) MR. Raval learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the show cause notice is vague; that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case; that looking to the incident which is referred in the externment order the officer who has recorded the complaint and who is the present externing authority are the same and therefore the ex- terning authority ought to have transferred the case to some other officer and that there is non- application of mind by the externing officer in as much as mechanical order has been passed ex- terning the petitioner.

( 6 ) WE do not find that it is necessary to consider all these points raised by Mr. P. M. Raval learned Counsel for the petitioner since we are of the view that the Special Criminal Application can be disposed of on the argument of the learned Counsel to the effect that the externing authority has taken into consideration the incident which has not been stated in the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act.

( 7 ) THE show cause notice has given three instances alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in a particular locality and during a particular period. These instances have already been extracted in para 1 above. In the externment order it is stated that:it is also staled in the complaint that the persons those who are having status and means have shifted from it so that they may not become victim of such tort

Click Here to Read the rest of this document