IMPORTANT POINT
If in the externment order there is nothing to show that the authority concerned has reached a conclusion that if the externee is not externed from certain limits of the area the public peace & tranquility will be affected & the externee will be a menace to the society then order will be vitiated.

JUDGMENT

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. - This special criminal application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in order to quash and set aside the order dated 11.7.1989 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure C to the petition. In and by the externment order which is at Annexure C to the special criminal application, the externing authority, who is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vadhwan Sub-Division, Surendranagar, in exercise of his power conferred under section 57 (c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 passed an order of externment, externing the petitioner herein for a period of 2 years from the limits of Surendranagar District. Appeal thereof filed under section 60 of the Act was dismissed by the Government of Gujarat by an order dated 17.10.1989 which is at Annexure F to the special criminal application. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has preferred the present special criminal application.

2. Various contentions have been raised in the Special Criminal Application and Mr. D.M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner stresses the point regarding the failure on the part of the externing authority to get himself satisfied with regard to the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner and the degree of harm his presence in the society will cause to the public at large. Mr. Thakkar also states that the externing authority has failed to consider the question as to how the petitioner will be of public menace if he is not externed from the locality. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that particulars of the convictions of the petitioner herein in respect of various cases filed against him have not been given and that, according to the learned Counsel, has vitiated the order of externment As regards this contention it is clear from the facts of the case, that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice with a schedule regarding the offences committed by him and the convictions accorded to him in the Court of law.

Hence we do not think that this contention can be looked into for the purpose of setting aside the order of externment.

3. We have carefully considered the first argument of Mr. D.M. Thakkar regarding the subjective satisfaction the authority has to make before any order of externment is passed. The show-cause notice which is issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act only states that:

" I hereby inform you under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act that in order to restrain you from carrying on such illegal activities, it has been prima facie decided to extern you from the limits of city of Surendranagar and rural areas, where it is apprehended that you might continue your such illegal activities."

Thus, there is only an apprehension to the effect that the petitioner will continue his illegal activities if he is not externed. In the externment order also there is nothing to show that the authority concerned has reached the conclusion to the effect that if the petitioner is not externed from the limits of Surendranagar District the public peace and tranquility will be affected and that the petitioner will be of a menace to the society: H such a conclusion is not reached, Mr. D. M. Thakkar correctly contended that it will vitiate the externment order, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in 1985(1) G.L.R. 194 and 1985(1)] G.L.R. 199, 1982(2) G.L.R. 535 and 14 G.L.R. 209. 14 G.L.R. 209, (Koli Dana Nathu v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajkot1) is the earliest case which discussed the purport and ambit of section 57 of the Act and as to how the same has to be invoked for the purpose of externing the person concerned. While passing that order the Bench had in its mind as to how the cherished liberty of a citizen has to be protected when especially the act of this nature is invoked to extern a particular person. The Bench observed:

"When the power is conferred on such a high authority which can result in such a serious