S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is externed in exercise of powers conferred upon the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka by passing order of externment, dated 31-5- 94 whereby he is externed for a period of two years from Ahmedabad City, ahmedabad Rural and contiguous districts of Bhavnagar, Surendranagar, rajkot and accordingly said order is passed in exercise of powers conferred upon the authority by Section 56 (b) of bombay Police Act, 1951. Consistent with the statutory requirement, notice under Section 59 of the said Act, dated 23-4-94 is served upon the petitioner whereby it is alleged against the petitioner that by his anti-social activities he has created an atmosphere of horror and terror. It is further alleged against him that by use of personal force and by violence he is committing offences punishable under Chapters 16 and 17 of i. P. C. and because of fear and apprehension created in the minds of people, no witness or complainant is coming forward either to file complaint or to give statement against the petitioner. He has further stated that he has therefore received a proposal for externment of the petitioner for a period of two years and therefore he was issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Ahmedabad and other contiguous districts. He has thereafter stated that the hearing of notice is fixed on 2-5-94 in his office and that the petitioner should remain present and tender his explanation. He has thereafter set out allegations made against the petitioner and if they are translated into english they read as under: allegations: (I) In the area of Sarangpur and in the vicinity thereof the petitioner is openly robbing and looting people and he has by his dictatorial attitude created atmosphere of horror and terror amongst the people and he is adopting the attitude of either persuasion OF penalizing the people or recovering penalty therefrom. (ii) If any person gives/files complaint or if any witness gives any evidence against the petitioner the petitioner gives threat or by using force he obliges such person to compromise. (iii) Though the people are suffering fear and violence from the petitioner none is opening mouth and they are silently suffering terror created by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner is not doing any business. He is keeping big gangs. (iii) Though the people are suffering fear and violence from the petitioner none is opening mouth and they are silently suffering terror created by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner is not doing any business. He is keeping big gangs. He is taking people at ransom and people are living at his mercy. (v) The right to liberty of people of the area is forcibly infringed by the petitioner by creating atmosphere of horror and terror and maintenance of public order is seriously prejudiced. (vi) People and witnesses are afraid of giving complaint against the petitioner and witnesses are afraid of giving their evidence in the court and petitioner and his associates are restraining the witnesses from giving evidence. (vii) Petitioner is a man having big gangs and is very violent and headstrong. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid is the free translation of activities attributed to the petitioner. The authority has, thereafter, made reference to three offences registered against the petitioner at Barvala Police station in the years 1991 and 1993. The authority has called upon the petitioner to show cause against his proposed externment. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner has thereafter appeared before the authority and has submitted his explanation as well as evidence as to why he was not required to be externed. ( 4 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate at dholka has thereupon proceeded to pass the order of externment under Section 56 (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1955. In said order which is at Annexure "b" to the petition the authority has described the order as "hukum" and has thereafter proceeded to state that since the petitioner was headstrong and violent person and since he was by use of force and violence robbing the people openly and since because of insecurity of life and property witnesses were not ready and willing to come forward to give evidence, an atmosphere of insecurity of life and property was created in the area of sarangpur, Taluka Dandhuka, Dist. Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. It is further stated that because of such anti-social activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and since it was not possible to improve the petitioner by ordinary remedies available under ordinary law, it was proposed to pass externment order and extern him from the districts of Ahmedabad and other contiguous districts and accordingly show cause notice under Section 59 of Bombay police Act, 1955 was issued to him. It is thereafter stated that in response to the notice the petitioner has appeared through his advocate and tendered his explanation and after considering such explanation and statements of witnesses the authority was satisfied that there was justification to extern the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred upon the authority by section 56 (b) of the said Act. Based on such satisfaction the order of externment is passed. This order of externment is a very laconic and cursory order. It does not set out various prejudicial activities attributed to the petitioner by the externing authority. It also does not set out the details of various allegations levelled against the proposed externee. It also does not set out and discuss the statements of witnesses examined by the proposed externee. In four lines, the externing authority has stated that after considering the show cause notice, reply of the proposed externee and his witnesses he was satisfied that there was justification for externing the proposed externee for a period of two years from ahmedabad Rural, Ahmedabad city and other contiguous districts. In my opinion, said Order of externment is totally non- speaking order. It does not disclose any reason, whatsoever, as to why the authority was feeling that there was justification for the order of externment. It does not even set out in detail the allegations made against the proposed externee. It has also not set out the gist of explanation tendered by the proposed externee. It has also not dealt with the gist of statements of witnesses examined by the proposed externee. It has also not given any reason as to why the authority was rejecting the explanation of the externee or as to why he was rejecting the statements of witnesses examined by the proposed externee. Admittedly, the order at Annexure "b" is only order communicated to the petitioner. It is against the said order that the petitioner has preferred appeal which is dismissed by the appellate authority. Admittedly, the order at Annexure "b" is only order communicated to the petitioner. It is against the said order that the petitioner has preferred appeal which is dismissed by the appellate authority. ( 5 ) MR. K. T. Dave, Ld. APP has, however, after referring to the original file available with him, submitted before the court that there is detailed order of externment which is passed by the Sub- divisional Magistrate, Dholka, That detailed order of externment is shown to the court. That order runs into five typed pages. It appears that in the said order various details of prejudicial activities are set out. It also appears that the defence of the proposed externee is also set out. The statements of witnesses are also set out thereafter the authority has proceeded to pass the order of externment. This order of externment which is shown to the court is totally different from the order of externment which is communicated to the petitioner. The Ld. APP has submitted that what is communicated to the externee is merely a communication and it is not an order of externment. If one refers to what is described as "communication" by the Ld. APP, it bears the heading "hukum". It thereafter reads like the order. It also sets out in the second para that having considered the prayer and the explanation tendered by the externee before the authority, the authority has decided to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from the aforesaid districts. It thereafter bears the signature of the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Dholka as well as his office. It has nowhere stated in the communication that there does exist a separate order of externment. The externee has in fact preferred the appeal against said communication. In my opinion it is not possible for the externee to know that over and above the order communicated to him, there existed another order of externment in the file of externing authority. In fact, a separate order of externment was passed and that order itself was required to be communicated to the proposed externee. The externee has substantive right of appeal against the order of externment. In fact, a separate order of externment was passed and that order itself was required to be communicated to the proposed externee. The externee has substantive right of appeal against the order of externment. If the order of externment is not supplied and the communication is sent which is silent about the fact that a separate order of externment is passed, one fails to understand as to how the proposed externee will know that separate order of externment is passed against him, and that he shall have to apply for certified copy of said order. The proceedings before the authority are more or less quasi-judicial in nature and one fails to understand as to how a person who is communicated such order of externment would know that there existed a separate order of externment in the file of the externing authority unless it is specifically informed about such order of externment. In my opinion, therefore, the order of externment which is communicated to the petitioner is not a speaking order. It is a very casual and mechanical order. It fails to exhibit any application of mind on the part of the externing authority. Power of externment is very lightly exercised without applying mind. In fact, such power drastically infringes personal liberty of an individual. Total carelessness exhibited by the externing authority in the present case while passing the order of externment shows as to how such drastic power substantially curtailing the right of movement of an individual is carelessly and mechanically exercised by the externing authority. To say the least, the order deserves condemnation and is required to be quashed and set aside. It will not be out of place to mention that the appellate authority has not thought it fit to give any reason, whatsoever. The order of the appellate authority is an ideal illustration as to how the quasi-judicial power of deciding appeal could be exercised totally carelessly and mindlessly by simply confirming the order since it has the power to confirm. The delegate of such important quasi- judicial power shoulders very high responsibility. He is exercising power of deciding statutory appeal. Power which he is exercising is quasi-judicial power. He has to give reasons as to why he was rejecting the appeal and as to why he was confirming the order of externment. The delegate of such important quasi- judicial power shoulders very high responsibility. He is exercising power of deciding statutory appeal. Power which he is exercising is quasi-judicial power. He has to give reasons as to why he was rejecting the appeal and as to why he was confirming the order of externment. In a proceeding where the show-cause notice runs into number of pages the explanation given by the proposed externee also runs into number of pages when that he has examined as many as ten witnesses some application of mind is needed on the part of appellate authority and it cannot simply write an order of two lines stating that there is every justification for externing the proposed externee and therefore appeal is rejected. This is showing total disregard for personal liberty of an individual especially when his right of movement is seriously impaired over a period of two years, and more particularly, he is sought to be externed from five districts. It is under these circumstances, that the appellate authority is expected to act with responsibility and with a view to seeing that the responsibility cast upon it is sincerely, diligently, honestly and conscientiously discharged. In my opinion the appellate authority has miserably failed in discharging such responsibility. ( 6 ) IN the result, petition succeeds. Order of externment as well as appellate order passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. .