Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.J.Shethna, J.U.MEHTA
SANTOSH RAMPRASAD SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIMINAL BRANCH AHMEDABAD - Respondent
S.C.A. 1636 of 1992
Decided On : 04/03/1992
Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 56, 59 and 60 – Learned Advocate appearing for petitioner contended that there is inordinate delay in passing externment order by Externing Authority and therefore order of externment should be quashed submitted that authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind and externed petitioner after delay of nearly four months subsequent to closing of the arguments and any laches on part of authority concerned cannot be countenanced and the benefit should go to the externee and order of externment should be quashed specific point is taken by petitioner in this petition contending that order of externment has been passed after lapse of four months inasmuch as proceedings before Police Superintendent were over and in spite of this respondent passed order of externment after about four and half months and therefore order of externment has been passed without considering necessity to extern petitioner after such lapse of time and therefore same is without any application of mind – Held, No affidavit is filed to explain delay caused in passing order – Nothing is shown by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor from the record to explain delay on the part of Externing Authority in passing impugned order – It is true that mere delay in passing externment order cannot be fatal to quash such an order but in our opinion delay must be explained – In present case there is a delay of nearly four months in passing externment order subsequent to the submission of explanation and arguments by petitioner herein and there is no explanation coming forth in any form – Court opinion delay in present case will vitiate externment order passed by authority concerned preventive action should be taken immediately and any inordinate delay will definitely vitiate such an action taken as a preventive measure. Similar view is taken by this High Court in case of Chothmal Sagansingh Rajput v. State of Gujarat and Other reported – Petition is allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the externee has challenged the order dated 21-8-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 herein under Section 56 (b) of the Bombay Police Act and confirmed by respondent No.
( 2 ) IN appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. 2 The Police Superintendent Crime Branch Ahmedabad City issued a notice dated 17-5-1980 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner-detenu inter alia alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous and fanatic person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specified mention in the notice that the petitioner was doing all these activities with the help of his associates in the vicinity of Manchha-ni Masjid Potaliya Char Rasta Bombay Housing and Everest Chinema falling within the jurisdiction of Shaher Kotda Police Station. The show-cause notice also mentioned specifically that all these activities in the above said locality are being done by the petitioner since December 1988.
( 3 ) ON these allegations the petitioner submitted his explanation. The petitioner also examined 13 witnesses before the Superintendent of Police who made inquiry in the matter. After examining the witnesses the petitioner submitted written arguments on 4-4-1991. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who is the Externing Authority has passed the order of externment only on 21-8-1991 externing the petitioner for a period of two 5 ears from the area falling in the City of Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Rural the districts of Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana.
( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. The said order of externment was confirmed by the Home Department on 18-11-1991 but the Appellate Authority reduced the period of externment of two years to that of one year.
( 5 ) MR. Bharat Dave learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that there is inordinate delay in passing the externment order by the Externing Authority and therefore the order of externment should be quashed. He submitted that the authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind and externed the petitioner after the delay of nearly four months subsequent to the closing of the arguments and any laches on the part of the authority concerned cannot be countenanced and the benefit should go to the externee and the order of externment should be quashed.
( 6 ) NO affidavit is filed on behalf of the Externment Authority even though Rule was issued by the High Court in this petition on 26-11-1991 making it returnable on 23-12-1991. At the time of admission Mr. D. K. Trivedi learned P. P. waived the service of Rule for the respondents and till today no affidavit is filed on behalf of the Externment Authority.
( 7 ) A specific point is taken by the petitioner in this petition contending that the order of externment has been passed after the lapse of four months inasmuch as the proceedings before the Police Superintendent were over on 4-4-1991 and in spite of this respondent No. 1 passed the order of externment after about four and half months and therefore the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to extern the petitioner after such lapse of time and therefore the same is without any application of mind.
( 8 ) IN our opinion there is much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In externing a person which is in the public interest the authorities are expected to act promptly and if they delay the matter the same will spell out that there is no urgent need nor necessity to extern a person from a particular locality or the District. The externment orders curtail the freedom of movement of the person concerned and therefore any laches on the part of the authority concerned cannot be countenanced and the benefit will go to the party concerned and on that score the externee will be entitled to the benefit of quashing such an order of externment.
( 9 ) IN the present case the ar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
