Ashish @ Tiniyo @ Miya Arvindbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 21.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3 in exercise of powers u/s 56 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), whereby the petitioner has been externed from the limits of Ahmedabad city, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years from the date of the said order as well as the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar, whereby the petitioner''s appeal u/s 60 of the Act has been dismissed.

Mr Atit Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of externment suffers from various infirmities. It is submitted that the show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be externed from the limits of Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts was issued on 26.11.2009. Hence, the said order suffers from the vice of delay. Secondly, it is contended that the learned respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on the two cases under IPC. He has vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been considered as dangerous person. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the activities of the petitioner were in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Mr Desai, learned APP, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in two serious offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 332, 337, 353, 427 of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Damage to Public Property Act as well as u/s 135(i) of the BP Act. Mr Desai has further submitted that the petitioner is a very head strong person and doing anti-social activities and, therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order of externment is just, legal and proper, and no intervention is called for by this Court.

I have perused the papers and considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. It appears from the papers that the offence u/s 332 of IPC is also registered against the present petitioner. Both the offences registered against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is a dangerous person and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order of externment dated 21.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3, and also, the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2, externing the externee, are hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged.