G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule; by consent, made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing, the Respondents having waived service.

2. The operative part of our judgment was pronounced in open court and reads thus:

For the reasons separately recorded, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the Respondent No. 3 to hear the Appeal No. 103 of 2013 or the Stay Application therein. Despite our clear directions, he has failed either to hear the Appeal or the Stay Application within time. Hence, we have heard the learned Advocates on merits.

“2. In view of the above, that we have heard the learned counsel on merits of the matter and for the reasons recorded, the Writ Petition succeeds. The order of externment of the Petitioner dated 5th July, 2013 is quashed and set aside.

3. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.”

3. Our reasons follow. First, the facts: The Petitioner was served with two notices, dated 22nd April 2012 and 17th October 2012, asking him to show cause why he should not be externed from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur for two years. On 5th July 2013, the 2nd Respondent ordered the Petitioner’s externment from Sangli and Kolhapur Districts for six months. The Petitioner filed an appeal to the 3rd Respondent, also seeking a stay of the externment order. He also filed an application for re-entry. Given the externment period, the Petitioner’s advocate asked for an immediate hearing. He was told that on account of forthcoming citywide festivals, the earliest hearing would not be before 18th September 2013 — a date not yet upon us. The Petitioner and his Advocate later learned that the 3rd Respondent scheduled the hearing for 21st September 2013. The Petitioner moved this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.2764 of 2013. On 6th August 2013, we recorded the statement of the Learned APP then appearing that the appeal would be heard on 27th August 2013.

4. What followed, and is set out at length in the Petition, makes for the most distressing reading. The hearing was to be at 2:30 pm at the office of the 3rd Respondent, Vineet Agarwal, at World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. The Petitioner and his Advocate were both at the venue in good time. They reported their presence to the under secretary. They were told that Mr. Agarwal was out to lunch and would return in half an hour, and asked them to wait in the conference room adjacent to Mr. Agarwal’s office. Half an hour later, at 3:00 pm, one of the staff from Mr. Agarwal’s office told the Petitioner and his Advocate to leave the conference room as a meeting was scheduled there. They were forced to wait in the lobby outside Mr. Agarwal’s chamber. They waited for another half hour till Mr. Agarwal returned at about 3:30 pm. A few minutes later, they saw some snacks being taken into Mr. Agarwal’s chamber. A little before 4 pm, they were told they would be called in for the hearing in another 10 minutes. By then, police personnel from Miraj had arrived. At 4 pm, an hour and a half after the scheduled time for the hearing, Mr. Agarwal exited his chamber, asking the police to wait in the opposite room. At 4:15, the parties were finally called in. When the Petitioner’s Advocate set his files on the desk, Mr. Agarwal demanded that they be removed. The Petitioner’s Advocate was forced to balance his papers and files on his lap while he argued the appeal. Mr. Agarwal closed the hearing in 30 minutes and when, to his question, the Petitioner’s Advocate said he had nothing to add, the Petitioner’s Advocate was allowed to leave. As they left, Mr. Agarwal asked the police staff to remain behind. At 5:30 pm, the Petitioner’s Advocate received a phone call from Mr. Agarwal’s under secretary saying that the next date of hearing was fixed for 21st September 2013. On making enquiries, the Petitioner’s Advocate was told that this had indeed been ordered by Mr. Agarwal, who had apparently directed the police