( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged order of externment dated 30. 01. 05 passed against him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Surat City, order passed by the appellate authority dated 07. 03. 06, order dated 04. 08. 05 detaining the petitioner in custody for the rest of the period n the ground that he has violated the externment order and order dated 04. 08. 05 by which the the petitioner was committed to Vadodara Special Jail. By order of externment dated 30. 01. 05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Surat City, the petitioner was externed for a period of two years from Surat City. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by order dated 07. 03. 06 partly allowed the appeal and reduced the period of externment by six months. Therefore, as per the appellate order, the petitioner was required to be externed upto 31st July 2006. However, not being satisfied by the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

( 2 ) MR. Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that before passing the order of externment, the petitioner was subjected to show cause notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 [hereinafter referred to as Act]. In the show cause notice, a copy of which is at page 12 Annexure a , there is a reference to three pending cases against the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that in order to prevent the petitioner from continuing with the activities, the authorities propose to pass an order for externment under section 56 (a) (b) of the Act. Ultimately, the authority, Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Surat City passed an order on 30. 01. 05. In the said order, over and above the three cases referred to in the show cause notice, the authority has also considered two more cases registered against the petitioner at Mahidharpura Police Station.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter the petitioner was arrested and detained in custody on 4. 8. 2005 for the rest of the period on the ground that he has violated the externment order. The said order dated 4. 8. 05 by which the petitioner was detained in jail is annexed at Annexure f to the petition. By a separate order passed on the same date, Annexure e , the petitioner was committed to Vadodara Special Jail. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also challenged the said order of detention on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction as the petitioner could not have been kept in custody and detained upto the period of externment especially when even a compliant is also filed under section 142 of the Act.

( 4 ) SO far as the order of externment is concerned, the show cause notice was issued earlier. In the show cause notice, there is a reference to only three FIRs which are alleged against the petitioner at Mahidharpura Police Station. However, at the time of passing the order of externment, the authority has taken into consideration two more cases, which is not in dispute. Even though this point is taken in the petition, there is no reply from the State. The petitioner is accordingly denied opportunity to effectively reply to the show cause notice as these cases have admittedly not been mentioned in the show cause notice.

( 5 ) IN the judgment in the case of MEGHA NARANBHAI HARIJAN vs. STATE OF GUJARAT and ORS. reported in 2002 (4) GLR 3412, a learned Single Judge of this court held that if any material is not disclosed in the show cause notice and if the same is based at the time of passing the externment order, it amounts to not giving an effective and reasonable opportunity for tendering explanation against the show cause notice and the real purpose and object of sec. 59 (1) of the Act will be frustrated. The said observations are made in paragraph 14 of the judgment. In the instant case, reference to the two cases mentioned in the externment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document