SCR.A/2211/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2211 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUKESHBHAI SAVABHAI PARMAR - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS BANNA S DUTTA for Applicant. Mr.L.R.Pujari, A.P.P.for Respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 18/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel Ms. Banna Dutta for the externee and learned A.P.P. Mr. L.R.Pujari for the respondents. 2. The externee has challenged the order of externment SCR.A/2211/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT dated 11-5-2007 passed by the respondent no.3- Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone 6, Ahmedabad City externing him for a period of two years from the limits and jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad as well as the limits of Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Mehsana and Kheda District, as also the order dated 26-9-2007 passed by the respondent no.2-Addl..Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalay, Gandhinagar, partly allowing the appeal and reducing the period of externment from two years to one year. 3. The learned Counsel for the externee while pointing out to the show cause notice dated 7-6-2006 issued by the respondent no.3 wherein four offences have been shown registered against the externee (i) CR no.3012/05 dt.8-1-2005, (ii) CR no.3070/2005 dt.24- 2-2005, (iii) CR no.3026/2006 dt.10-1-2006 and (iv) CR no.3129/2006 dt.25-2-2006 all registered at Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 12 and/or Section 4 of the Gambling Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the externee has challenged the order of externment on various counts. However, he had confined his arguments on two points only i.e. (i) that the activities of the externee are not such as would affect the public order and (ii) that though the cases were registered against the petitioner at Amraiwadi Police Station SCR.A/2211/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT and the activities of the petitioner were carried out at Amraiwadi alone, the externing authority had externed the petitioner from Mehsana, Kheda and Gandhinagar also. The show cause notice reveals that the externee was branded as a head strong and “dangerous person” engaged in the activities of gambling, threatening and beating innocent people and businessmen of the locality of Amraiwadi and near about villages and extracting money and costly articles from them without making any payment and when payment is demanded these businessmen are threatened of dire consequences, teasing women passers-by, collecting instalments from the businessmen of the area etc.and as such there prevailed a feeling of insecurity a feeling of insecurity among the general public. That on account of such activities of the externee the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the externee out of fear. 5. The learned Counsel for the externee submitted that there is nothing on record to show that by the allelged activities of the externee, the public order was ever disturbed and therefore preventive detention laws cannot be applied to such cases. According to the learned Counsel, the order of externment is bad in law and requires to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned A.P.P. while supporting the two orders of the authorities under challenge has submitted that SCR.A/2211/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT the authorities in exercise of the powers vested in them can extern such headstrong and dangerous persons for certain periods. However, the learned A.P.P. is not able to show that the activities of the externee would fall within breach of public order. 7. In my view, this petition is capable of being disposed of one ground alone. To reach to the subjective satisfaction that the actitvities of the externee were prejudicial to the maintanance of public order, the externing authority must rely upon cogent and credible material showing that the activities of the externee were causing or were likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm of feeling of insecutrity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property etc. 8. In the present case, the externing authority has taken into consideration the investigation papers in the four offences mentioned above registered against the externee under the Gambling Act. The externee may be tried and punished if found guilty for breach of law in connection with these offences. Definitely, the act constituting the offence cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of life of the community. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority being not legal and valid, the order under challenge is required to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone without going into the merits of the other ground canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. SCR.A/2211/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of externment dated 11-5-2007 passed by the respondent no.3-Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the limits and jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad as well as the limits of Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Mehsana and Kheda District, as also the order dated 26-9- 2007 passed by the respondent no.2-Addl.Secretary, Home Department, Sachivalay, Gandhinagar, reducing the period of externment are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (M.D.Shah,J.) lee