B.G. Kolse Patil JUDGMENT
S.C. Pratap, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Against the impugned externment order, the petitioner has preferred appeal to the State Government. Stay was, however, declined. Hence this petition.
3. Now, when an appeal is provided by the statute and the same is filed, it is then, in a matter of externment, but just and fair that pending the appeal, the externment is stayed. Refusal in that behalf may, in a given case, as well render the appeal itself infructuous. We are informed that stay is not granted as a matter of policy. If that is so, it is rather unfortunate. It tends to defeat justice. The need for externment should be balance with the requirement to be just, fair and reasonable to the externee. If a life convict can be released on bail or a preventive detenue on parole or one accuse of serious economic offence granted even anticipatory bail, what is so extraordinary qua an externee that in no case he should be given stay? Besides, discretion vested in an appellate authority must be exercised not blindly as a matter of policy but rationally depending upon the facts and facts of each case. In all the circumstances we are inclined to grant stay pending the appeal with direction to decide the same expeditiously.
4. Hence order :
(a) This petition is allowed, Pending the hearing and disposal of the petitioner's appeal, there shall be stay of the impugned order of externment.
(b) The said appeal should be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of thirty days from today. If the appeal is dismissed, the order of externment should not be enforced for a period of two weeks from the service of the appellate order upon the petitioner.
5. Rule made absolute.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.