Gujarat High Court
Jayendrasinh Amarsang Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/SCR.A/9590/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9590 of 2022
==========================================================
JAYENDRASINH AMARSANG JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KULDEEP J MEHTA(8571) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEET M KATIRA(10504) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 30/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhachau, Kutch externing the petitioner for a period of six months from Kutch district.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Parth Brahmbhatt for learned advocate Mr.Katira appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of externment is required to be set aside since the same is premised on registration of 2 FIRs against the petitioner under the provision of Sections 323, 427, 143, 147, 149, 294B, 506(2) and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)and Section 135 of the G.P.Act. It is submitted that merely because 2 FIRs are registered against the Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:15 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9590/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022 petitioner, the same will not make him a dangerous person.
3. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Premjibhai Devjibhai Mewada Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 2006 (3) GLH 105. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order, which is passed without jurisdiction and premised on incorrect subjective satisfaction, is required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms.Patel has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court. She has referred to the provision of Section 56 of the G.P.Act and has submitted that the petitioner is a headstrong person hence, the present writ petition may not be entertained.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
6. It is not in dispute and an admitted fact that the petitioner was issued the show-cause notice under the provision of Section 59 of the G.P.Act by placing reliance on two FIRs registered under the provisions of Sections 323, Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:15 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9590/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022 427, 143, 147, 149, 294B, 506(2) and 447 of the IPC and Section 135 of the G.P.Act at Lakadiya Police Station, Kutch. After placing reliance on the statements of two witnesses, the respondent authorities have externed the petitioner from the entire Kutch district for a period of six months.
7. I may with profit also refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Nana @ Raju Totaram Dusane (Sonara) Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2021) 1 GLH 460. This Court, in the analogous case, where the petitioner was externed on the basis of registration of two FIRs under the provisions of Sections 379, 392, 397, 506(2) and 120B of the IPC, has held thus:
"10. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by issuing so called notice under the B. P. Act by the authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged cannot have any bearing on the breach of public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be so germane. 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. The authorities declared the present petitioner as dangerous person, who would enhance and provoke anti social activities, but there should be some subjective satisfaction, without there being Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:15 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9590/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022 subjective satisfaction, how the authority can issue notice to the effect as person for externment."
8. The conspectus of the aforesaid decision would reveal that the respondent authorities, while exercising power under the provision of G.P.Act for externment of any person have to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the offences or illegal activities committed by such person, would result into breach of public order as required under the act or penal laws. The authorities are under a legal obligation to analyze the material facts and arrive at a conclusion that such person has become threat and menace to the society so as to disturb the equilibrium of the society and also that the public at large is in peril and public order is also disturbed at the instance of such person. The authorities have to give a specific finding that such person is a dangerous person, who would enhance and provoke the anti-social activities. Such a subjective satisfaction is required to be based on concrete and specific details and not on vague statements or material.
9. In the present case, the impugned order is premised on 2 FIRs and on the statements of two witnesses, which also lack specific details and are vague in nature.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:15 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9590/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022
10. On the substratum of the aforenoted observations, the impugned externment order passed by the respondent authority is herewith quashed and set aside. The present writ petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 03 20:54:15 IST 2022