1968 (4) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Validates Notices Under Bombay Police Act: Specific Allegations, Competent Officer, Upheld Writ Petitions

State Of Gujarat And Anr.   Etc. Versus Mehboob Khan Usman Khan Etc.

The Supreme Court held that the notices issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, were valid as they provided the general nature of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notices issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.2. Whether the allegations in the notices were too vague and general.3. Whether the respondents were given a reasonable opportunity to tender their explanation.4. Competency of the officer passing the externment orders.5. Availability and exhaustion of the appellate remedy under Section 60 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the Notices Issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951The Supreme Court examined whether the notices issued under Section 59 of the Act were in compliance with the statutory requirements. The notices informed the respondents of the general nature of the material allegations against them, which included accusations of being dangerous and desperate individuals engaging in acts involving force and violence. The Court emphasized that the notices need to provide the general nature of the allegations, not detailed particulars.Issue 2: Whether the Allegations in the Notices Were Too Vague and GeneralThe respondents contended that the allegations were too vague and general, making it impossible for them to offer an effective explanation. The Gujarat High Court had found that certain allegations, such as consuming eatables without payment from places of public entertainment, were too vague. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the notices were sufficiently specific as they mentioned the period and the areas where the alleged activities took place. The Court held that the allegations were of a general nature of material allegations as required under Section 59.Issue 3: Whether the Respondents Were Given a Reasonable Opportunity to Tender Their ExplanationThe Supreme Court noted that both respondents had filed written statements and adduced evidence in their defense. One respondent was even represented by an advocate. The Court found that the respondents had been given a reasonable opportunity to tender their explanation regarding the allegations made against them, thus complying with Section 59 of the Act.Issue 4: Competency of the Officer Passing the Externment OrdersThe respondents had raised objections regarding the competency of the officer who passed the externment orders. The Supreme Court did not find any merit in this objection, as the orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who was the competent authority under the Act.Issue 5: Availability and Exhaustion of the Appellate Remedy under Section 60 of the ActThe appellants argued that the respondents should have exhausted their appellate remedy under Section 60 of the Act before approaching the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court, in its discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, chose to entertain the writ petitions despite the availability of an appellate remedy. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this exercise of discretion by the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Gujarat High Court, holding that the notices issued under Section 59 and the externment orders passed under Section 56 were valid. The Court clarified that the allegations in the notices were sufficiently specific and that the respondents had been given a reasonable opportunity to tender their explanation. However, the Court also noted that no action would be taken against the respondents based on the now-upheld orders, as the period of externment had already expired. The appeals were allowed, but no further action was to be taken against the respondents.