In order to extern an individual from multiple districts, the externing authority must explicitly indicate the justification for each district in the order.

JUDGEMENT

#. In this petition filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated June 18, 2001 (Annexure-'B' to the petition) passed by the externing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Viramgam, by which he has externed the petitioner for a period of one year from five districts i.e. Ahmedabad Rural, Ahmedabad City, Surendranagar, Gandhinagar and Kheda and also the order dated September 11, 2001 (Annexure-'C' to the petition) passed by the appellate Authority confirming the said order and prayed to issue a writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside both the above orders.

#. A show-cause notice dated March 14, 2001 (Annexure-A to the petition) under sec.59 of the Bombay Police Act was issued to the petitioner, wherein, several allegations were made against him to the effect that he is a strong headed quarrelsome and aggressive person who has no fear of law and order, picking up quarrel with people and give threats to kill them, continues his anti social activities by which he is causing physical and financial damage to the people and the people are afraid of filing complaint against him and the activities carried out by him is detrimental for maintenance of public order. Besides this, two criminal cases for the commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code and two chapter cases are registered against the petitioner.

Therefore, by issuing a show-cause notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of one year from the districts to which reference is made in earlier paragraph of this judgment.

#. The petitioner gave reply to the said show-cause notice. The externing Authority, after considering the material on record, passed the impugned order of externment dated May 28, 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred under sec.56(B) of the Act externing the petitioner for a period of one year from the above mentioned districts.

#. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the externing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the appellate Authority vide order dated September 11, 2001, which has given rise to the present petition.

#. Mr. Pravin Gondalia, learned advocate for the petitioner raised several contentions and tried to convince this Court that the order of externment suffers from various vices much less it is recorded in clear non-application of mind. Besides this, he has also raised a contention that the petitioner belongs to Ahmedabad Rural and he is externed not only from Ahmedabad Rural but from Ahmedabad City, Gandhinagar, Surendranagar and Kheda Districts. He also contended that the alleged so-called activities which are narrated in the show-cause notice are confined to Ahmedabad Rural only and the externing Authority has not mentioned anything about the activities of the petitioner in the contiguous four districts. Therefore, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner the impugned order of externment suffers from the vices of non-application of mind, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

#. Mr.S.S.Patel, learned APP opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner is a strong headed person and his activities are detrimental to the society at large. He is involved in two criminal cases. Therefore, the externing Authority has rightly passed the order externing the petitioner for a period of one year. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the petition.

#. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties. I have also perused the averments made in the petition and the order passed by the externing Authority, so also the order passed by the appellate Authority and other papers a