( 1 ) THE point raised in this petition challenging the order of externment as per Annexure A dated 19/03/1982 passed against the petitioner is concluded in his favour by a decision of this High Court rendered more than ten years back in Dana Nathu. Sub-Divisional Magistrate 14 G. L. R. 209. It is surprising that the Deputy Commissioner of Police should be unaware of the decision rendered by this High Court in a matter arising out of an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Rajkot ten years back and he should commit the same mistake in 1987 which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate committed in 1972. That there should be total lack of any method to avoid such an intolerable situation is sufficient to cause dismay to anyone. Can the competent authority not evolve any system to ensure that no technical faults are committed ? To at least ensure in any event that faults already discovered are not recommitted ? The information-gap and the system-void can defeat measures bona fide taken in public interest. Is it desirable that the authority concerned should sit with folded hands blind folded eyes and ears plugged with comforting cotton wool ? The position is intolerable and causes dismay. We can only say: it is for the department concerned to do something about it if they are serious about it. The impugned order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had been convicted thrice of an offence punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 within a period of three years as envisaged by sec. 57 (c) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 A similar order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rajkot in Dana Nathus Case was struck down on the ground that the externing authority had failed to consider the extent of the harmful activities of the petitioner and whether it had reached such a degree or extent that in the interest of general public the petitioner was required to be removed from that locality by putting him out of the harms way so that the community in the locality could remain in peace and tranquility and safety. The externing authority who has passed the impugned order has committed the identical error of not having considered this dimension of the matter. The impugned order does not show that this aspect was present before the mental eye of the externing authority. He should have applied his mind to this aspect and recorded a finding in this behalf. It is inconceivable how he could commit the same error if he was vigilant. Atleast he ought to have known the decisions rendered by this High Court under sec. 57 (c) in the past. What is ununderstandable is that he should not even know of an order passed in a matter arising from Rajkot Division itself in similar circumstances. We have had an occasion to avert to the aspect regarding the necessity for constituting an appropriate legal cell to give guidance in orders passed under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act in the case of Chandravati Fakirchand v. State 23 (1) G. L. R. 760 wherein it was observed as under:"the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act has been chiselled in order to extend protection to the society from being starved of essential commodities and from being exploited by unscrupulous elements who feel no compunction in indulging in mal-practices unmindful of resultant miseries to the common man. In order to ensure that the provisions serve their purpose in practice a high-powered Cell consisting of members who have made a close concentrated and in-depth study of all the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and notifications in regard to preventive detention must be created. The presiding officer of the Cell must be aware of the latest decisions and must be able to brief the detaining authorities in regard to the law on the subject and the procedural safeguards insisted upon by the Courts. The Cell must prepare a note incorporating the propositio