( 1 ) ON 28th June, 2005, the counsel appearing for the parties were put to notice that this petition of the year 2004 challenging the order of externment will be heard finally at admission stage. Accordingly, on 28th June, 2005 this petition was fixed on 12th July, 2005. Though an affidavit-in-reply dated 5th August, 2004 was already filed on 12th July, 2005, time was granted to the respondents to file additional reply till 14th July, 2005. On 14th July, 2005 again time was granted till 21st July, 2005. In the meanwhile on 18th July, 2005 affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Respondent No. 2. On 3rd August, 2005, submissions were heard and the petition was kept on 9th August, 2005 for dictation of judgment. On 9th August, 2005 some documents were tendered by the learned A. P. P. and therefore, the Counsel appearing for the parties were heard and today this petition is kept for judgment.

( 2 ) A show-cause notice dated 2nd october, 2002 was issued by the Respondent no. 2 to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be externed under the provisions of section 57 (a) (i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It was urged in the show-cause notice that serious crimes have been registered against the Petitioner. Reliance was placed on the 11 offences registered against the Petitioner from the year 1994 to 2002. It was stated that in case of offence registered in the year 1999, the petitioner has been convicted. A reply was submitted by the Petitioner to the said show- cause notice. Order of externment has been passed on 5th April, 2004 by the Respondent no. 1. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner for challenging the order of externment which came to be dismissed by order dated 29th June, 2004 passed by the Respondent No. 1- State government.

( 3 ) SHRI. Marwadi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the order of externment has been passed after expiry of a period of 18 months from the date on which show-cause notice was issued. He submitted that the Respondent No. 1 has relied upon nine offences which have been registered against the Petitioner between the period from 1994 to 1998. He pointed out that in case of one offence registered in the year 1999, the Petitioner has been convicted and the appeal against the order of conviction has been admitted by this Court. He pointed out that last offence relied upon in the show-cause notice is registered in the year 2002 and in connection with the said offence, the Petitioner has not been arrested. He submitted that the order of externment could not have been passed on the basis of offences which are registered against the Petitioner from the year 1994 to 1999. He submitted that the offence registered in the year 2002 cannot be the basis of the order of externment as the Petitioner has not been arrested in connection with the said offence. He submitted that because of the gross delay in passing the order, the live link between the order of externment and the charges which are levelled against the Petitioner has been snapped.

( 4 ) THE learned A. P. P. has opposed the petition by pointing out that the delay in passing the order has been satisfactorily explained by the Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit dated 18th July, 2005. The learned a. P. P. submitted that as the delay has been properly explained, on that ground, the order cannot be set aside. The learned A. P. P. submitted that in connection with the offence which was registered against the Petitioner in the year 2002, he has been arrested on 30th may, 2005. The learned A. P. P. on 9th August, 2005 in her further submission submitted that the offences alleged against the Petitioner are of very serious nature and therefore, it was necessary to initiate preventive action. The learned A. P. P. submitted that only because of delay in passing the order, live link between the preventive action and the allegations against the Petitioner is not snapped.

( 5 ) IN support of t