h1

P L D 1957 SC (INDIA) 90

HARI KHEMU GAWALI

V/S

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Constitution of Pakistan, Article 11 (a).

A person who is sordered to remove himself outside the areaof the local limits of an Authority cannot contend that he has been directed to remove himself altogether outside the limits ofthe State or Province. The idea underlying sections 55 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act is the dispersal of gangs and removal of kpersons convicted of certain offences. Unless a erson makes himself so obnoxious as to render his presence in every part of the State or Province a menace to public interest including public peace and safety, everey Commissioner of Police or District Magistrate would not think of acting in the same way in respect of the same person. Hence none of the authorities has the power to direct that person to remove himself outside the entire State and the Act does not impose unreasonable restrictions.[pp.100-101]

Constitution of India, Articles 19 (1) (d) (e)—Constitution of Pakistan, Article 11 (a)—Externment order byj Police authorities—Whether void as violating rules of natural justice.

Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act provides that before action is taken the authority entrusted with the duty of passing orders shall inform the person proceeded against in writing “of the general nature of the material allegations against him” in order to give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining his conduct.

Constitution of India, Articles 19 (1) (d), (e) and 5
(Constitution of Pakistan, Article 7)—Bombay Police Act (XXII of 1951), S. 57—Validity.

Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, cannot be held to be ultra virus on the ground that unlike Preventive Detention Laws there was no provision in the impugned law for an Advisory Board which could scrutinize the material on which officers or authorities contemplated by section 57 had taken action against a person.

It cannot be, and has not been laid down, as a universal rule that unless there is a provision for an Advisory Board the legislation would necessarily be condemned as unconstitutional. The very fact that the Constitution in Article 22(a) has made specific provision for an Advisory Board consisting of persons of stated qualifications with reference to the law of preventive detention, but has made no such specific provision in Article 19 would answer this contention. The existence of an Advisory Board is not a sine qua non of the Constitutionality of such a legislation. [p.102]

Constitution of India Article 19,
(Constitution of Pakistan, Articles 8. 9, 10 and 11)—Reasonable restriction.

The determination of the question as to whether the restriction imposed by legislastive enactment upon the fundamental rights oif a citizen are reasonable or not would depend as much upon procedural part of the land as upon its substantive part. [p.100]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: