Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 623 of 1957, decided on 22nd October 1957.
S. 14 (2) (b) ‑District Tribunal can prevent a goonda from visiting certain places‑Tribunal has no power under section to direct his removal
Clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, merely enables the Tribunal to prevent a goonda from visiting certain places but gives no power to direct his removal from a certain area.
Where, therefore, a person residing in Lahore was ordered by the Tribunal not to "visit the area within the limits of Corporation of Lahore City" and was directed to "remove himself from the area of the Corporation" it was held that though he could be directed by the Tribunal not to visit certain specified places, such as schools, colleges, cinemas, it was idle to ask him, belonging as he did to Lahore, not to "visit" Lahore. Such. a prohibition could be placed on him under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 14 only if he had belonged to a place outside Lahore. As a resident of Lahore, he could be restricted to certain areas under clause (a) and the area in question would certainly include the locality where his own house is situate. Clause (b), however, was not intended to be used for preventing a person from visiting his own house. Whether prohibition under section 14 (2) (b) attaches to the visiting of a place or to the going within a place it has no element of "removal" in it.
S. M. Rahman Ansari for Petitioner.
S. A. Mahmud, Additional Advocate‑General for Respon dents.
Date of hearing : 22nd October 1957.
Riasat Ali alias Roshi of Mohalla Kakezaian, Lahore, having been declared a dangerous goonda by the District Tribunal under section 13 (2) of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, was directed under section 14 (2) (b)‑
(1) not to "visit the area within the limits of Corporation of Lahore City without the written permission of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kotwali City, Lahore" and
(2) to "remove himself from the area of the Corpora tion of Lahore City within 24 hours from the announcement of this order .
He is challenging the order in a writ petition on various grounds. During the arguments, his counsel laid particular emphasis on the following three grounds :‑
(1) that an externment order was illegal because it was not authorised by the Control of Goondas Act ;
(2) that since the externment was for an unlimited time, the restriction placed on his movements could not be regarded reasonable within the meaning of Article 11 of the Constitution ;
(3) that the procedure adopted did not accord with the provisions of the Act.
We confine ourselves to the first ground only. The order purports to be under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 14, which empowers the Tribunal to direct that a person who has been declared a dangerous goonda "shall not visit or go within surroundings specified in the order, or, any of the under‑mentioned places, without the written per mission of the Police Officer in charge of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction such place is situated, namely schools, colleges, and other institutions where minor persons or women are given education . . . . . . . : ' etc.
This clause merely enables the Tribunal to prevent a goonda from visiting certain places but gives no power to direct his removal from a certain area. Belonging as he does to Lahore, it is idle to ask the petitioner not to "visit" Lahore, though he could be directed not. to visit certain specified places, such as schools, colleges, cinemas. Such a prohibition could be placed on him under this clause only if,, he had belonged to another place, Model Town for instance. As a resident of Lahore, he could even be restricted to certain areas under clause (a) but the area in question would certainly include the locality where his own house is situate. It is apparent, however, that clause (b) was not intended to be used for preventing a person from visiting his own house.
Mr. Mahmud, appearing for the State, tried to draw a distinction between the word "visit" and the words "go within", and contended that the latter expression in clause (b) enabled the Tribunal to pass an order the effect of which would be to extern a person from the place of his residence, We have frankly not been able to understand the argument, and Mr. Mahmud apparently thought that some distinction ought to be drawn between the two expressions, so as to make an order of externment possible. We find it unnecessary to attempt a distinction between them for our present purpose, because, whether the prohibition attaches to the visiting of a place or to the going within a place, it has no element of "removal" in it.
We, therefore, accept this petition solely on the ground that an order of externment is not authorised by the Act. It will be open to the Tribunal to pass any other suitable and legal order. No costs.
K. B. A. Petition accepted,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer