D.N.Medhi-fof Petitioner; K.B.Barman, Sr. Government Advocate-for thi State. Ram Labhaya J-This order will dispose of Revn. petns. (Cri.) Nos. 58 and 30 of 1949. The petitioners were committed to the Court of, and tried by the Political Officer, Sadiya, who was also the Sessions Judge for the area. Ganpatrai was tried for an offence under s. 376, Penal Code, and Radhakisaen for its abetment. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges against them. It was found that though Ganpatrai had committed sexual intercourse with Bimola and Badhakissen had 'abetted the act, no offences had been committed as the evidence in the case did not disclose that sexual intercourse had been committed without Bimola's consent. While acquitting both the petitioners of the charges, the Political Officer ordered externment'of the-petitioners from the Mismi Hills District hold­ing that their presence in the area constituted a menace to society. In his opinion the petitioners-were undesirable persons and therefore deserv­ed to be externed. [2] The petitioners have applied to this Court for revision of the orders against them by se­parate petitions. [3] The order of externment does not refer to the provision of law under which action was taken. On a rale having been issued calling upon the Political Officer to show cause why the order be not set aside he pointed out that the order bad been passed under S. 22, Chin Hill Regula­tion (V [5] of 1896) and that no appeal or revi­sion lay to the High Court. The order could be revised only byithe Provincial Government. The learned Government Advocate supports this position and urges that this Court has no juris­diction to entertain the revision petition. [4] The learned counsel for the petitioner do not deny that the action taken was possible only under s. 22, Chin Hill Regulation, which applied to the Sadiya Tract in a modified form at one time admittedly. Their contention is that the sections of the Chin Hill Regulation which were applicable to the Sadiya tract till 1945 stood re­pealed when Regulation I [i] of 1945 was passed. They concede that there is no express provision repealing these sections. Their contention is that the repeal has come by necessary implication. [5] We have given our careful consideration to this argument and we are inclined to the view that it has got no force. They concede that there is no express provision repealing these sections. Their contention is that the repeal has come by necessary implication. [5] We have given our careful consideration to this argument and we are inclined to the view that it has got no force. Certain sections of the Chin Hill Regulation (ss, 2-2, 23, 38 (2), 40) were applied in their restricted and modified form to Sadiya and certain other tracts. The Political Officer or the Deputy Commissioner was empowered under 8. 22 for reasons to be recorded in writing to order any parson not being a native of the area to leave the area within a given time if he was satisfied that his presence in the area was injurious to the peace and good administration of the area. An order passed un­der this provision cannot be called in question in any civil or criminal Court. The Provincial Government alone has the power to revise such orders. The object with which certain sections of the Regulation were applied (though in a modified form) to the tract in question was the maintenance of peace and good administration in the area. These provisions were applied by a Notification which embodies more or less a spe­cial law for the area. Regulation I [i] of 1945 as is apparent from its preamble was intended to consolidate and amend the law governing the administration of justice in the frontier tracts of Assam including the area in question. The two measures can run parallelly. They do not meet at all. There is no essential conflict between them and sections of the Chin Hill Regulation o»n be enforced without contravening any pro­vision of Regulation I [1] of 1915. The objects of the two measures are also different. In these circumstances there cannot be any implied re­peal of the Notification applying certain sec­tions of the Chin Hill Regulation to the Sadiya tract. These sections are still in force and can be resorted to if circumstances exist which justi­fy their application. [6] The order of externment having been pass­ed under 8. 22, Chin Hill Regulation, as appli­cable to the Sadiya tract, this Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere. The petitions are, there­fore, rejected. The petitioners can ask,for redress from competent authority. [7) Thadani C- J-I agree. G.M.J. Petitions dismissed.