CHAGLA, C.J.- By this application an order made by the Additional District Magistrate of Thana dated 26th April 1949, is being challenged. Though the order directs the petitioner to remove himself from the State of Bombay and the order is made under S. 46, sub-s. (3), Bombay District Police Act, 1890, it is contended that this provision of the law is void inasmuch as it contravenes a fundamental right given to the subject by the Constitution, and the fundamental right which is being relied upon is the fundamental right under Art. 19 to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. We have had to consider a similar question in Emperor v. Jeshingbhai Ishwarlal, 52 Bom LR 544 : (AIR (37) 1950 Bom 363) and we held that the provision of law under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, for externment was void, inasmuch as there was no provision made for the externee being heard by the authority externing him. Now when we consider the provisions of the Bombay District Police Act, we find that under S. 46A, a person against whom an order is intended to be made has a right to be heard, and what is more he has also be