J.U. Mehta, J.@mdashThe petitioner who is the externee has challenged the order dated 21-8-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 herein u/s 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act and confirmed by respondent No. 2 in appeal u/s 60 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The Police Superintendent, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City, issued a notice dated 17-6-1989 u/s 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner-detenu, inter alia, alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous and fanatic person and doing his activities by using or violence. There is a specific mention in the notice that the petitioners was doing all these activities with the help of his associates in the vicinity of Manchha-ni Masjid, Potaliya Char Rasta, Bombay Housing and Everest Cinema falling, within the jurisdiction of Shatter Kotda Police Station. The show cause notice also mentioned specifically that all these activities in the above said locality are being done by the petitioner since December 1988.
3. On these allegations the petitioner submitted his explanation. The petitioner also examined 13 witnesses before the Superintendent of Police who made inquiry in the matter. After examining the witnesses the petitioner submitted written arguments on 4-4-1991. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who is the Externing Authority has passed the order of externment only on 21-8-1991 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area falling in the City of Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Rural, the districts of Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 60 of the Bombay Police Act, The said order of externment was confirmed by the Home Department on 19-11-1991, but the Appellate Authority reduced the period of externment of two years to that of one year.
5. Mr. Bharat Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that there is inordinate delay in passing the externment order by the Externing Authority and, therefore, the order of externment should be quashed. He submitted that the authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind and externed the petitioner after the delay of nearly four months subsequent to the closing of the arguments and any laches on the part of the authority concerned cannot be countenanced and the benefit should go to the externee and the order of externment should be quashed.
6. No affidavit is filed on behalf of the Externing Authority, even though Rule was issued by the High Court in this petition on 26-11-1991 making it returnable on 23-12-1991. At the time of admission, Mr. D. K. Trivedi, learned P. P. waived the service of Rule for the respondents and till today no affidavit is filed on behalf of the Externing Authority.
7. A specific point is taken by the petitioner in this petition contending that the order of externment has been passed after the lapse of four months inasmuch as the proceedings before the Police Superintendent were over on 4-4-1991 and in spite of this, respondent No. 1 passed the order of externment after about four and half months and, therefore, the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to extern the petitioner after such lapse of time and, therefore, the same is without any application of mind.
8. In our opinion, there is much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In externing a person, which is in the public interest, the authorities are expected to act promptly and if they delay the matter, the same will spell out that there is no urgent need nor necessity to extern a person from a particular locality or the District. The externment orders curtail the freedom of movement of the person concerned, therefore, any laches on the part of the authority concerned cannot be countenanced and the benefit will go to the party concerned and on that score, the externee will be entitled to the benefit of quashing such an order of externment.
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.
10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned externment order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal confirming the externment order are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
