STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC. versus MEHBOOB KHAN USMAN KHAN ETC.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 11-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
MEHBOOB KHAN USMAN KHAN .ETC. 
April 11, 1968 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C. J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Jlombay Police Act 22 of 1951 ss. 56 and 59-Notice to show cause 
under s, 59 and order of externment under s. 56-validit,v of.-Whether 
notice n1ust contain detailed particullirs of allegations-if general nature of 
material allegations suffeci~nt to provide a person w'1h reeironable opportu-
nity of explaining his conduct. 
' 
-"The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahrnedaba.d City served notice> 
on· the respondents in the two appeals on August 13, 1964 and July 28, 
1964 under s. 59 of Bombay Police Act XXII of 1951 informing them that 
various allegations had been made against them under s. 56 of the Act and 
th;it it was proposed to remove .them outside the District of Ahrnedabad 
City and cenain contiguous Districts. An opponunity was given to them 
of tendering their explanations in respect of the allegations on dates which 
were- communicated to them in the noticea. Each of the notices contained 
allegations, inter alia, to the effect that the l'espondents consumed eatables 
f1'<J!ll place; of public entenainment without payment and when legal dues 
WWe demanded from them, they beat up the pe1'ons concerned; and that 
tbe'witnesses in. respect of the various incidents and allegalions were not 
willing to come forward to depose againat the respondents in public by 
reuon of apprehension on their PHI as regards the safety of their pewn 
and propeny. After the respondents had submitted their written explana• 
tiOlis and produced evidence in their defence, the Deputy Commissioner 
p-8sed Orders on November 9, 1964 and FebruHy 9, 1965 directing the 
retiik>ndents to remove themselves from ateas mentioned in the order for 
a period of two yeaJ> and not to enter the same without permission in 
writing obtained fro~ a competent authority. 
The respondents thereafter challenged the orders of the Det,>uty Com· 
missioner in writ petitions undr,r Ans. 226 and 227 of the Consti:ution and 
coiltended, .inter alia, ·that the notices on which the subseauent Orders of 
externment were passed were too vague both with regard to the time and 
plac.& of their alleged activities; the allegations made against them were 
so general that they could not effectively offer any ""planations or sub-
stantiate their defence:. and that in effect the material alleptions against 
them had not been set out in the notices -and there was therefore no proper 
compliance with the provisions of s. S9 so as to enable the Deputy Com· 
milsJone'r to take action under s. 56 of the Act. The High Court allowed 
the petitions holding that the notices were invalid as they were too general 
and 'V!'t"e· It also held that the definition of "a place of public entertain-
meot" m the Act would take in the numerous placea mentioned ins. 2(10) 
aud accordingly the ~espondents could not have sufficient opponunitv of 
explaining their conduct not knowing what particular places of public en-
.tertainment they were supposed to have visited where they were alleged 
to have committed various acts alleged against them. The High Court 
therefore quashed the notices under s. 59 as well as the orders of extern· 
me~t p:issed against the respondents. 
On appeal to this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GUJARAT v. MEHBOOB KHAN (Vaidialingam, 1.) 
747 
A 
HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the notices uruler 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s. 59 and the orders of cxternmcnt under s. 56 were invalid. 
The view that the allegations against the respondents should have con-
tained all the particulars of places of public entertainment or establish-
ments Ibey were supposed to have visilcd, was not warranted by the pnwi-
sions of s. 59. The notices referred to the periods during which the acts 
were stated to have been committed, as well as the area where they were 
said to have been committed. 
The mete fact that the definition of the 
expression 'place of public entertainment', in s. 2(10) of the Act takes in 
various types of places, dces not militate against the allegations in question 
being material allegations as contemplated under s. 59. [757 D·E] 
When a person against whom an order of extem·ment is proposed to 
be passed has to tender an explanation to a notice under s. 59, he can only 
give an explanation of a general nature. It may be open to him to take 
a defence of the action being taken due to mala fides, mali

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.