Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Since Suraj's case extensively refers to Sandhi Kala's case, it wp-1578-21-FB.odt is necessary to refer to that judgment. It was specifically observed in the said judgment that the State Government while exercising its power against an order of externment under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 was not bound to give and disclose reasons in support of its order. The main discussion was in respect of nature of power exercisable by the externing authority at the first instance. It was observed that the circumstances to be inquired into by the externing authority would be, if not wholly, at least to some extent, are the circumstances of suspicion and the question to be considered by the externing authority would be whether these circumstances are such as require taking up anticipatory action. These are not the matters which are amenable to judicial approach. They cannot be assessed by any objective standards.

This is exactly the submission made by Smt. Pai before us. To that extent we agree that it is an action in anticipation of future possible situation which can be created by the proposed externee's acts. This will be within territory of subjective satisfaction of the externing authority. In the same line of discussion, the analogy was extended by the Full Bench of Gujarat in that case to the powers and wp-1578-21-FB.odt functions of the Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the Act of 1951. It was observed that all the reasons which the Full Bench had discussed taking a view that the externing authority, making an order of externment, was administrative; were applicable to the determination of the question whether the power exercised by the State Government in disposing off the appeal was administrative or quasi judical. It was held that necessary subjective satisfaction was required to be recorded by the Authorities, including the State Government. It was further held that for the same consideration, reasons were not required to be given by the Appellate Authority.

Here, we differ from the observations made in Sandhi Kala's case regarding nature of power under Section 60 of the Act of 1951.

15. We make it clear that we are not deciding whether the order passed by the externing authority is administrative or quasi judicial. The point of reference is restricted to the order passed under Section 60 of the Act of 1951 which is an appellate order. According to us, the Appellate Authority is required to act independently. The Authority is not empowered to pass the order at the first instance. The externment order can be confirmed, set aside, wp-1578-21-FB.odt modified or the matter can be remanded back. But, these are independent functions. To arrive at the conclusion, the Appellate Authority will necessarily have to take into consideration the material placed before it. The Appellate Authority is not required to reach its subjective satisfaction. It has to objectively test the externment order placed before it. There is a definite material in the form of externment order, which the Appellate Authority has to consider for its correctness. This function is different from arriving at a subjective satisfaction based purely on the material against the Appellant. The Appellate Authority has to objectively assess whether the externment order was passed rightly. The appellate authority does not act as a confirming authority regarding the original externment order. It has to act independently.

22. In Rangnekar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that neither the externing authority nor the State Government in appeal can be asked to write reasoned order in the nature of a judgment. The same view was followed in Salem's case. In these observations, the key words are "a reasoned order in the nature of a judgment". The State Government in appeal was not expected to write reasoned order in the nature of a judgment, but, that did not mean that no reasons whatsoever were required to be given. The appellate order was not expected to be in the nature of a judgment, but, at the same time, reasons could be given by testing the impugned externment order objectively. It is possible to give reasons without divulging specific particulars of allegations against the externee. The reasons can be given maintaining confidentiality of the relevant material. The task of the Appellate Authority is to consider whether the externing authority has rightly passed the externment order while taking into consideration the material against the externee. At that time, the Appellate Authority need not wp-1578-21-FB.odt discuss the particulars of material against the Appellant therein.