- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dhan Bahadur Ghorti v. The State
Factual and Procedural Background
This case arises from a petition filed under Rule 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District challenging an order dated 5-10-1951 by the Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills. The order directed the petitioner, Dhan Bahadur Ghorti, to vacate Damalgiri Akhing village by 15-11-1951. The Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings following a petition by approximately 33 persons, including villagers and the Nokhma, alleging that Dhan Bahadur was of undesirable character and a nuisance. Upon notice and hearing, the Deputy Commissioner found that Dhan Bahadur's conduct had become a terror to the local people and ordered his expulsion. The petitioner challenged this order before the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Rule 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District empowers the Governor or the court to entertain an appeal or revision against an expulsion order issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
- Whether the order of expulsion constitutes a criminal sentence or an administrative order.
- Whether the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India have been violated by the expulsion order.
- Whether the petition filed under Rule 22 and Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable in the circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that the application could be treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as referenced in the petition.
- It was argued that the expulsion order violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e), which guarantee freedom of movement and residence.
Respondent’s Position (Deputy Commissioner)
- The Deputy Commissioner justified the expulsion as necessary for maintaining public peace and removing a public nuisance.
- It was explained that a long-standing custom, supported by a Standing Order from 1934, restricts foreigners or Nepalis from residing in Garo Hills villages without permission, particularly to protect Scheduled Tribes.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed Rule 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District and found that it applies only to criminal cases involving sentences passed on conviction, not to administrative orders of expulsion. The expulsion order was held to be administrative in nature, aimed at maintaining public peace and removing a nuisance, rather than a criminal sentence. The court further examined the petitioner’s reliance on Article 226 and Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. It observed that mere mention of a constitutional article does not entitle the petitioner to relief under that article. The court referred to Article 19(5), which permits reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in the interest of the general public or for the protection of Scheduled Tribes. Given the Deputy Commissioner’s report and the standing custom supported by a Standing Order from 1934, the court found the expulsion justified as a reasonable restriction protecting tribal interests. Consequently, the petition was deemed incompetent and not maintainable under the invoked provisions.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to dismiss the petition. The stay order granted earlier was vacated.
DISPOSED OF
The direct effect of this decision is that the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing the petitioner to leave Damalgiri Akhing stands affirmed. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling confirms the administrative authority’s discretion to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public peace and protection of Scheduled Tribes under existing laws and customs.
1. This is a Criminal Miscellaneous case started on a petition purported to be one under R. 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District against the order of the Deputy Commr., Garo Hills, dated 5-10-1951, directing the petitioner Dhan Bahadur Ghorti to leave Damalgiri Akhing (the village within the jurisdiction of Nokhmas) by 15-11-1951.
2. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills started the proceeding numbered Misc. Case No. 170/51 on the application of some 33 persons many of whom came from the village of Damalgiri including the Nokhma thereof. These persons stated in the petition before the Deputy Commissioner that Dhan Bahadur Ghorti was a man of undesirable character and as such his stay in the locality was a sort of nuisance to the people there. The learned Deputy Commissioner directed a notice to be issued on Dhan Bahadur Ghorti to show cause why he should not be asked to vacate Damalgiri within a reasonable time. Dhan Bahadur did show cause and stated—therein that the allegations against him were not true but that he was a money-lender and most of the persons who moved against him were his debtors. He, however, expressed willingness to leave the village if his dues were paid. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties and referring to old documents traceable in his Court and examining some persons found that Dhan Bahadur's “gallant activities” had become a terror and nuisance to the simple Garo people of the locality. On this basis he directed that Dhan Bahadur should leave the Damalgiri Akhing within the course of about 40 days.
3. On a reference to R. 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District I find that, this rule does not empower the Governor nor this court to hear an appeal or revision from an order of extradition or expulsion from the District of Garo Hills as has been the subject-matter of this rule. Rule 22 relates only to cases of Criminal nature where a sentence is passed on conviction.
4. In this case the order of expulsion of the petitioner is more of the nature of an administrative order for maintenance of public peace or for removal of a public nuisance rather than a sentence. In this view the petition to this court is not maintainable.
5. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner submits that this application can be treated as one under Art. 226, of the Constitution of India as there has been a mention of this article in the petition.
6. Mere mention of an article of the Constitution of India is not enough to make out a case for issue of an appropriate writ as contemplated under that article. Mr. Sen had incidentally argued that by the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner directing expulsion of Dhan Bahadur from Damalgiri Akhing there has been a violation of Art. 19 cl. (1) sub-cls. (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. But on a reference to cl. (5) of the said article of the Constitution of India we find that “nothing in sub-cls. (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes…………reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said subclauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.” Here it appears from the Deputy Commissioner's report submitted to this court that it is in the interest of the natives of the Garo Hills that a custom prevails that no Nepali or any foreigner should be allowed to live in the Garo Hills without the Deputy Commissioner's permission in various Garo villages and that is traceable to a Standing Order of 18 years ago (S.O No. 104 dated 31-5-1934). It is clear that this practice has been prevalent at least for the last 18 years is not more and I don't think it to be in the interest of justice to deal with it lightly, rather I am inclined to hold that the Deputy Commissioner had exercised his discretion properly in the matter of asking Dhan Bahadur to leave Damalgiri Akhing.
7. In my view, therefore, the present petition under R. 22 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hill District is incompetent and there is no groun for giving relief to the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The Misc. Case therefore fails and the stay order is vacated.
9. I appreciate the assistance rendered be learned Government Advocate, who appeared in this matter at my request.
10. Order accordingly.
Alert