Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.:— Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C (L & C).
2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.01.2017 passed in C.C.A Case No. 15 of 2015-16 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 had passed an order of externment of the petitioner from the district of Ranchi for a period of 6 months enforceable from 15.02.2017 to 15.08.2017
3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order of externment can be passed against the petitioner as the case which have been referred to in the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 are all stale cases. It has been stated that the petitioner in his show-cause had duly given a reply, but the respondent no. 2 by declaring the petitioner as an anti-social element for the cases which were last instituted a decade back had passed an order of externment against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since there is palpable error in the impugned order which can be rectified by this court, the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy in terms of Section 6 of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981.
4. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C (L & C) appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and stated that petitioner is involved in 3 criminal cases. It has been stated that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to appeal before the Commissioner and since the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy, the writ application preferred by the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal of the locality and it was necessary for the peace and tranquility of the district that an order of externment was passed against the petitioner.
5. It appears that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Khalari P.S Case No. 31 of 2002 under Section 394 of I.P.C, Khalari P.S Case No. 112 of 2017 under Section 452/354/34 of I.P.C and Khalari P.S Case No. 113 of 2007 under Section 25(1-b) A/26/35 of Arms Act. Based on the 3 cases in which the petitioner is an accused, a proceeding for externment against the petitioner was started. The petitioner was noticed and he had appeared and denied the charges levelled against him. He had further stated that out of 3 criminal cases, in 2 cases he has already been acquitted whereas, 1 case is pending in which he is regularly appearing. The respondent no. 2 had passed a final order on 30.01.2017 in which the order of externment against the petitioner was passed which was enforceable from 15.02.2017 to 15.08.2017 It is an admitted position that the cases which form the basis for externment of the petitioner are all stale cases. Not a single case against the petitioner had been referred in the order of externment after the year 2007. The reason for externment is beyond comprehension as for a case instituted in the year 2007, the order for externment has been passed in the year 2017. Although the petitioner had an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 6 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act before the Commissioner, but in view of the apparent illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 in which by making reference to stale cases, the order of externment has been passed, this court in its writ jurisdiction is entitled to interfere in the order if the same is palpably illegal from the face of it without directing the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy available to him under law.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the petitioner had been externed from the district of Ranchi for the period 15.02.2017 to 15.08.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. This writ application stands allowed.