J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE to amend. The petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed by the commissioner of Police, Surat City on 3-10-1989, under the provision of sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, externing the petitioner from City of surat and other contiguous districts for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the said order before the appellate authority. That the appellate authority, after hearing the petitioner, rejected the appeal by an order dated 18-1-1990 which is at Annexure "c". Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the aforesaid orders. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that in the present case the petitioner had been acquitted in Mahidharpura police Station Crime Register No. 305 of 1987, for offences punishable under secs. 324, 302, 114 of I. P. C. However, the said incident and the case has been taken into consideration by the externing authority in the show cause notice and in the order also. The learned Advocate further submits that when a person is acquitted in a case by the Competent Court, the said incident cannot be taken into consideration for passing an order of externment, and therefore, the order is bad. It is also urged by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it is mentioned both in the notice as well as in the order that the petitioner was acquitted in the case bearing crime Register No. 305 of 1987, as witnesses and the panchas turned hostile because of the fear of the petitioner. And therefore, he was acquitted. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that this is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of externing authority, as it will be seen on perusing the judgment of acquittal passed by the competent court that injured witnesses and other eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution and they were not declared hostile by prosecution and on appreciation of evidence the Court came to the conclusion that the identity of the accused was not established and therefore on merits the Court acquitted the present petitioner. It may be that some of the witnesses, may have been declared by the prosecution as hostile, but it cannot be said that the petitioner is acquitted because the prosecution witnesses and the panchas turned hostile because of the fear of the petitioner and therefore there was acquittal. It is, therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this is a clear nonapplication of mind on the part of the externing authority in arriving on the subjective satisfaction. And therefore, also the order is vitiated. ( 3 ) THE learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it is true that the petitioner was acquitted in Mahidharpura police Station Crime Register No. 305 of 1987 for the offence under secs. 324, 302, 114 I. P. C. , but that cannot prohibit the externing authority to come to the conclusion that even though the petitioner was acquitted in that case, he is likely to indulge in the similar activity in future. He also submitted that it is a fact that some of the prosecution witnesses and the panchas turned hostile, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind by the externing authority on the material on record. It is submitted that the order of externment, cannot be quashed on the grounds advanced on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) WE do not agree with the submissions made by the learned A. P. P. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In the present case the externing authority had relied upon the incident of Mahidharpura Police Station Crime Register No. 305 of 1987 and has based the order of externment on the said material, and had taken support in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to engage himself in the commission of similar offence. Therefore, it is obvious that inspite of the order of acquittal passed by the competent Court, the externing authority relied on the particular incident, as the externment order shows, in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to one. Therefore, it is obvious that inspite of the order of acquittal passed by the competent Court, the externing authority relied on the particular incident, as the externment order shows, in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to one. We also perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court which was produced by the learned A. P. P. from the record of the respondent, and after going through the judgment, we find that the petitioner was not acquitted merely on a technical ground, but was acquitted on an appreciation of evidence by the court and the Court which he satisfied that the present petitioner has committed offence with which he was charged in connection with the alleged incident of 17-9-1987. In our opinion once the Criminal Court has appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty of the offence, it was not open to the externing authority to rely upon the particular incident in support of its conclusion that the person concerned was likely again to engage himself in the Commission of an offence similar to the one for which he was committed in past. ( 5 ) THE view which we are taking is supported by the judgment of this high Court in case of Ramesh Ratilal v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, in Special Criminal Application No. 14 of 1973, decided on 4-7-1973 (Coram : Diwan and P. D. Desai, JJ. ). Apart from this consideration therefore, further difficulty in the way of the respondent in the instant case, as contended on behalf of the petitioner is that there is non-application of mind on the material on record by externing authority inasmuch as the externing authority has said that in Mahidharpura Police Station Crime Register No. 305 of 1987, the petitioner was acquitted because the witnesses and the panchas in that case turned hostile because of fear of the petitioner. While going through the judgment it can be seen that in Para-8 of the judgment, Ramesh who was injured witness and who was sleeping alongwith the deceased and who was examined did not turn hostile. While going through the judgment it can be seen that in Para-8 of the judgment, Ramesh who was injured witness and who was sleeping alongwith the deceased and who was examined did not turn hostile. Shantaben, mother of witness Ramesh was also corroborating to some extent the evidence of Rameshbhai and on appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, the trial Court also came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused. In our opinion looking to the aforesaid facts, it is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority. On this count also the order must fail. Therefore, when an order of externment is based on several grounds, some of which are irrelevant, the court cannot decide which ground weighed with the externing authority and it cannot substitute its own decision for that of the authority and so the order of externment must be quashed. If one of the grounds mentioned in the externment order is unsustainable or non-existent, to say that the other ground which still remains, is quite sufficient to sustain the order would be to substitute an objective judicial test for the subjective satisfaction of the executive authority which is against the legislative policy underlying the statute. Thus, if we come to the conclusion that the externing authority has mechanically applied its mind without properly forming its subjective satisfaction and that it has taken into consideration irrelevant and non-existent ground for forming its subjective satisfaction, the order of externment should be considered as vitiated. Considering all these aspects of this case, we are of the opinion that the externing authority has mechanically applied its mind taking into consideration non-existent and extraneous facts in forming its subjective satisfaction for the purpose of externing the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN view of the discussion made above we are of the view that the order of externment, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be sustained and the rule issued in this Special Criminal Application is made absolute by setting aside the order of externment passed by the externing authority and the order confirmed by the appellate authority herein. Rule made absolute. .