Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Chotumal Sugansingh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 28 October, 1985
9. In the present case, the arguments were submitted by the externee on 4-4-1991 and, therefore, the proceedings were concluded on that day and the Externing Authority has passed the order only on 21-8-1991 i.e. after the delay of four months. No affidavit is filed to explain the delay caused in passing the order. Nothing is shown by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor from the record to explain the delay on the part of the Externing Authority in passing the impugned order. It is true that mere delay in passing externment order cannot be fatal to quash such an order but, in our opinion, the delay must be explained. In the present case, there is a delay of nearly four months in passing the externment order subsequent to the submission of the explanation and the arguments by the petitioner herein and there is no explanation coming forth in any form. Therefore, in our opinion, the delay in the present case will vitiate the externment order passed by the authority concerned, The preventive action should be taken immediately and any in ordinate delay will definitely vitiate such an action taken as preventive measure. Similar view is taken by this High Court in the case of Chothmal Sagansingh Rajput v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 30 (1) GLR 63.
Section 59 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
1