JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kishan Prajapati on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Asmita Patel on behalf of the respondent- State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1- State.

3. By way of this application the applicant challenges orders dated 21.12.2022 confirming an order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, “L” Division, Ahmedabad City whereby the present applicant had been externed from Ahmedabad City as well as other contiguous districts. By way of the later order i.e. order dated 21.12.2022 the Appellate Authority while modifying the order insofar as the said order externs the present applicant from the contiguous districts, confirms the order insofar as the externment from Ahmedabad District is concerned.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati on behalf of the applicant would submit that the order of externment and order passed by the appellate authority, do not reflect any application of mind. Learned Advocate would further submit that both the orders do not reflect subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority on basis of objective material placed before it. Learned Advocate would further submit that one of the most crucial aspects i.e. the FIRs and the NC complaints filed against the present applicant, being at the behest of one Lalabhai Revabhai Bharwad, with whom the present applicant had a civil dispute, not being considered by the authority and most importantly the authorities not considering that the testimony of the secret witnesses, was not required to be considered, since prima facie they appear to be absurd.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Patel would submit that while the authority passing the impugned order, had externed the present applicant from Ahmedabad District as well as other contiguous districts including Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar, the Appellate Authority, after considering the issues raised by the present applicant, had set aside the order of externment insofar as the contiguous districts are concerned and whereas the order insofar as it refers to the Ahmedabad District, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of externment. Learned APP would submit that the said action on part of the appellate authority clearly reflects application of mind by the authority and whereas according to learned APP, there is no requirement that the Appellate Authority or even the authority passing the externment order is required to pass an elaborate reasoned order as in the nature of a judicial order.

5.1 Learned APP would further submit that the testimony of the secret witnesses clearly reveal that the present applicant was a dangerous person and whereas the facts of there being two FIRs and two NC complaints against the present applicant also point out to the same fact that the present applicant was a person who was regularly coming into conflict with the law. Learned APP would submit that the applicant having been given adequate opportunity by the authority while passing the impugned order and whereas the Appellate Authority also not interfering with the order insofar as the applicant was externed from Ahmedabad District, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order.

6. In rejoinder learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would rely upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre vs. the State of Maharashrta & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 1241 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters, in which the Court could exercise jurisdiction while considering challenge to an order of externment. Having regard to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would request this Court to set aside the impugned orders.

7. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties who have not stated anything further.

8. It requires to be noted that Section