( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Tirmizi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A. P. P. for respondents.

( 2 ) BOTH the present matters are pertaining to the petitioner-Megha Naranbhai harijan who has been ordered to be externed vide order dated 24-2-2000 passed by the externing authority which order was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17th July, 2000.

( 3 ) IN Special Cri. Application No. 539 of 2001, the petitioner externee has challenged the impugned order of externment dated 24-2-2000 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17th July, 2001.

( 4 ) IN Special Cri. Application No. 552 of 2001, the petitioner externee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, palitana under Sec. 62 (1) (2) of the Bombay Police Act dated 20th April, 2000 which has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palitana on the ground that the petitioner-externee has committed breach of the conditions of the order of externment dated 24th February, 2000 bearing Case No. 7 of 1999. Since the petitioner is common in both the petitions and since the petitions are arising out of the common set of facts, both the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 5 ) IN Special Cri. Application No. 539 of 2001, the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Palitana has served a show-cause notice to the petitioner in respect of the externment Case No. 7 of 1999 under Sec. 59b of the Bombay Police act whereby the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why he should not be externed from the District of Bhavnagar, Amreli, Rajkot, Surendranagar, ahmedabad and Junagadh. Said show-cause notice was replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 10th February, 2001, and thereafter, the concerned authority has passed order of externment externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the District of Bhavnagar, Amreli, Surendranagar, Rajkot, Junagadh and Ahmedabad by order dated 24-2-2000 which order was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17th July, 2000. Therefore, said orders are under challenge in Special Cri. Application No. 539 of 2001.

( 6 ) SPECIAL Criminal Application No. 552 of 2001 is arising out of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palitana under Sec. 62 of the bombay Police Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed breach of the order of externment and was caught in the area of Bhavnagar from where he was ordered to be externed, and therefore, considering the statements given by the petitioner before the P. I. , Botad and also considering that the petitioner has entered in the limits of the area from where he was externed without prior permission, the concerned authority has directed that the petitioner shall be kept in custody upto 23-2-2002 in District Jail at Bhuj and subsequently was transferred to the Central Prisons, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Tirmizi has challenged the impugned order of externment on the ground that in show-cause notice, no reasons have been assigned by the externing authority as to why the petitioner has been externed from the adjoining districts. He has submitted that in the show-cause notice, there was no reference about Rajkot District but in the order of externment, the petitioner has also been externed from the Rajkot District, and therefore, it amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the concerned authority. According to him, the impugned order of externment is a non-speaking order. He has also submitted that the statements of the secret witnesses though recorded by the concerned authority prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice, copies of such statements were not supplied to the petitioner externee and no reference has been made in the show-cause notice and in the order of externment also, no such reference was made but in the orders passed by the appellate authority, reference thereof was made. According to h