Point of Law: Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kunal S. Shah for the applicant and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for the respondent State through video conference.

2. The petitioner, who is the externee, has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of externment dated 24.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 in HDP/86/2019, whereby the petitioner is externed from the limits of Surat City and Surat District for a period of two years; as well as the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 in Externment Appeal No.200 / 2019.

3. The externment authority issued a show cause notice dated 10.07.2019 under Section 59 to the petitioner detenue inter alia alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous person and doing his activities by using force or violence and why for such acts he should not be externed from the city. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.07.2019. After examining the explanation, the respondent No.2 has passed the order of externment under Section 56(b) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 on 24.08.2019 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the limits falling within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, Surat City. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 60 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the respondent no.2 was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that there is a gross delay in passing the externment order. The alleged incident of FIR being C.R. No. I-70/2018 of Limbayat Police Station, Surat had taken place on 10.03.2018 and the notice was issued on 10.07.2019 and the externment order came to be passed on 24.08.2019. Therefore, there is delay in passing the order of externment for which no explanation was given by the Externing Authority. Hence, the object of the Act is defeated and therefore the externment order is required to be quashed. He further submitted that while passing the order of externment, the Externing Authority has not dealt with any contentions and documents produced by the Externee. He further submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual criminal. The externee has not committed or repeated the offences and therefore, it clearly shows that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the definition of dangerous person.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his case relied upon the following authorities of this Court, which are as under :

(i) In case of Asif @ Asif Gando Mehbubmiya Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240952;

(ii) In case of Kalubhai Becharbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2003 (0) GLHEL-HC 205973;

(iii) In case of Purushottambhai Budhabhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2004 (2) G.L.H.579;

(iv) In case of Chauhan Shaukatali Mogalkhan Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, reported in 2001 (0) GLHEL-HC 202204.

6. Per contra, learned APP has opposed for quashing and setting aside the order of externment as well as the order of the appellate authority and submitted that if Court is inclined to quash the orders, appropriate orders may be passed.

7. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred the authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.

8. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court [Coram: A.Y. Kogje, J.] in case of Asif @ Asif Gando Mehbubmiya Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240952 has observed in paragraph no.9 as under:

“9. The order of externment would stand vitiated as while arriving on a subjective satisfaction and passing the order of externment, the externment authority has not only refer