( 1 ) THOUGH many questions are sought to be raised by counsel for the petitioners after hearing hint we feel that all these questions are covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sarjubhaiyu v. Dy. Compur of Police (XXV (1) GLR 538 ). Therefore we are not called upon to decide the questions. The only other question which did not directly arise in that case and which is urged before us by counsel concerns the plea that the externment order is bad for the reason that it does not indicate independent reasons for externing the petitioner not only from the district of his activities. hut also from contiguous districts. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Vrajalal v. D. M. Rajkot (III GLR 809) Lalji Kanji v. V. T. Shah (IV GLR 668 and Mamad Kala v. State (XIV GLR 384) counsel contends that whenever an externing authority chooses to direct externment from not only the district within which the person against whom the order is passed is seen to be active but also contiguous districts the reason why such externment order should operate even in regard to such contiguous districts should be shown in the notice preceding the order as well as in the order. Of co