Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1972 (4) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the externment order under Section 57(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. Alleged constitutional violation of Article 19(1)(d) and (e). 3. Non-application of mind by the authority. 4. Requirement of substantial danger to society. 5. Exhaustion of alternative remedies. 6. Judicial review of administrative discretion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Externment Order under Section 57(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 The petitioner challenged the externment order dated January 10, 1972, which was issued under Section 57(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order was based on the petitioner's three convictions under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and his continued involvement in similar activities. The court examined whether the externment order was justified based on the petitioner's past convictions and ongoing activities. 2. Alleged Constitutional Violation of Article 19(1)(d) and (e) The petitioner argued that the externment order violated his constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e), which guarantee freedom of movement and residence. The court discussed the necessity of imposing restrictions in the interest of the general public and public order. It emphasized that the restriction must be reasonable and justified by the need to maintain public order and safety. 3. Non-application of Mind by the Authority The petitioner contended that the authority did not apply its mind to the necessity of the externment order. The court scrutinized whether the authority considered the guidelines and the extent of the petitioner's harmful activities. It was found that the authority failed to evaluate whether the petitioner's presence posed a substantial danger to society, thus indicating a non-application of mind. 4. Requirement of Substantial Danger to Society The court elaborated on the requirement that an externment order should be based on a substantial danger to society. It referred to precedents that established the need for the authority to demonstrate that the individual's activities had reached a degree of harm that justified such an extreme measure. The court concluded that the authority did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner's activities posed a substantial danger to society. 5. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies A preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal before the State Government. The court held that when an order is challenged as ultra vires, the petitioner can seek judicial review directly without exhausting alternative remedies. The court emphasized that an ultra vires order is a nullity and can be challenged directly in the court. 6. Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion The court discussed the principles of judicial review of administrative discretion, emphasizing that the authority must act fairly and within the legislative framework. It referred to various precedents to underline that the exercise of discretion must be based on relevant considerations and should not omit relevant factors. The court found that the authority misdirected itself by not considering the necessary guidelines and the extent of the petitioner's harmful activities. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order, declaring it ultra vires. It held that the authority did not apply its mind to the necessary guidelines and failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's activities posed a substantial danger to society. The court emphasized the importance of following constitutional guarantees and the requirement of reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
|