( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Banna Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned APP for the respondents.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, the show cause notice has been issued on 11/9/2000 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Thereafter, the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 12/10/2000 and thereafter, the externment order has been passed on 14/12/2000 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Externment Case No. 28 of 2000 for a period of one year. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the same was rejected on 10/4/2001.

( 3 ) MS. BANNA Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the show cause notice, no reasons have been given by the concerned authority as to why the petitioner has been removed from the adjoining Districts i. e. Surendranagar, Rajkot, Amreli, Junagadh and Ahmedabad. There is no such discussion in the show cause notice. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that looking to the allegations made against the present petitioner, they relate to the area of "a" Division Bhavnagar and, therefore, there was no offence either registered or unregistered against the petitioner in other adjoining Districts. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that in show cause notice, no reasons have been given as to why the petitioner has been removed from the adjoining Districts and, therefore, the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar is required to be quashed and set aside. Ms. Dutta has also submitted that similarly, even in the externment order also, no reasons have been given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar as to why the petitioner has been removed from the adjoining Districts. The second contention, which has been raised by Ms. Dutta is that the statements of the secret witnesses have been taken into account by the concerned authority in externment order but the same were not reflected in the show cause notice and, therefore, no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner which is required under Section 59 of the Act. Ms. Dutta has also submitted that the order of externment is bad in law and she has also submitted that in appeal also, the statements of the secret witnesses have been taken into account while rejecting the appeal by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, Ms. Dutta has also submitted that the order of externment which has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar is against the principles of natural justice and a reasonable and effective opportunity has not been given to the petitioner in respect to the material which has been taken into account against the present petitioner. Therefore, on both counts, the order of externment is bad in law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) MR. H. L. JANI, learned APP for the respondents has submitted that a detailed show cause notice has been given by the concerned Authority and after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the order of externment has been passed with full application of mind and reasons were also given by the concerned authority and similarly the appeal has rightly been rejected by the concerned Authority. Mr. Jani has also submitted that the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar and the order of Appellate Authority are legal and valid, the same do not require any interference by this Court.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. In respect to the first contention, looking to the show cause notice itself and the order of externment it is clear that the petitioner has been removed from adjoining Districts. There is no reason given by the concerned authority as to why the petitioner was required to be removed from adjoining districts, when t