J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) BY means of filing this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the order of externment dated July 20, 1994, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, rajkot City (East), which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition as well as the order dated August 19, 1994 passed by the State Government produced at Annexure- c to the petition by which the order of externment is confirmed in appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of the present petition may now be stated. The petitioner was served with a notice dated December 8, 1993 which was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajkot (East) under the provisions of Sec. 59 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ("the Act" for short) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Rajkot City and contiguous areas mentioned therein for a period of two years. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the notice read as under :" (1) You are staying at Quarter No. 24, Laxmiwadi Colony which is situated within the jurisdiction of Rajkot City c Division Police Station. You carry on illegal activity of selling liquor and are engaged in commission of offences involving force and violence. Except illegal activities, you are not following any lawful pursuit and you are a known bootlegger in the area falling within the jurisdiction of Rajkot City "c" Division Police Station. (2) The following offences have been registered against you with Rajkot City c Division Police Station as well as Rajkot Taluka Police Station :- (i) C. R. No. 21 of 1987 registered at c Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 66 (1) (b), 65 (a), 65 (e), 81 of the Bombay Prohibition act, 1949. (ii) C. R. No. 298 of 1987 registered at c Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506 (2) of the indian Penal Code and Secs. 30 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. (iii) C. R. No. 272 of 1989 registered at c Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506 (2) of the indian Penal Code and Secs. 30 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. (iii) C. R. No. 272 of 1989 registered at c Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. (iv) C. R. No. 538 of 1992 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 447, 506 (2), 509, 114 of the Indian Penal code. (v) C. R. No. 13 of 1993 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 452 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) C. R. No. 288 of 1993 registered at c Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 66 (1) (b), 65 (a), 65 (e) and 81 of the Bombay prohibition Act, 1949. (3) You are committing offences punishable under the provisions of the Bombay prohibition Act and also committing offences affecting, human body. You are also abetting commission of those offences. (4) You are a very head strong person and grab properties of others by force. By use of force and committing offences effecting human body you get houses vacated and obtain huge amount from owners of the buildings and lead a lavish life. Moreover, you and your associates transport and sell English liquor on large scale. You are also arrested in offences affecting human body wherein you used weapon like knife. (5) Because of your illegal activities, such as transport and sale of English liquor, beating innocent people etc. the residents of Laxmiwadi Colony are terrorised. (6) Because of your illegal activities as well as activities of your associates,breach of peace has taken place amongst peace-loving residents of Laxmiwadi area. (7) As you are head strong person, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property. ( 3 ) BY the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to remain present on december 14, 1993 and execute personal bond of Rs. 500. 00 as well as surety for the like amount to ensure that the petitioner remained present before the competent authority during the externment proceedings. ( 3 ) BY the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to remain present on december 14, 1993 and execute personal bond of Rs. 500. 00 as well as surety for the like amount to ensure that the petitioner remained present before the competent authority during the externment proceedings. ( 4 ) AFTER service of notice on the petitioner, his preliminary statement was recorded on December 14, 1993. The petitioner was permitted to examine defence witnesses. The petitioner also submitted written statement before the authority. The assistant Commissioner of Police considered all the materials placed before him and gave opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thereafter the Assistant commissioner of Police forwarded all the materials to Deputy Commissioner of police, Rajkot City, Rajkot with his report. The externing authority took into consideration the materials placed before it and was satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in commission of offences affecting human body and property by use of force and violence and witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property. Under the circumstances, the externing authority, i. e. , the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, Rajkot by an order dated july 20, 1994 directed the petitioner to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of Rajkot City as well as Rajkot District and Surendranagar District which are contiguous to Rajkot City for a period of two years. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of police Rajkot city, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government under Sec. 60 of the Act. The State Government has also rejected the appeal by order dated August 19, 1994, giving rise to the present petition. ( 6 ) SEVERAL grounds have been pleaded in the petition while challenging the order of externment and the appellate order by which the externment order is confirmed. However, at the time of hearing of petition only one contention is pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to all the grounds pleaded in the petition except one which is raised on behalf of the petitioner. However, at the time of hearing of petition only one contention is pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to all the grounds pleaded in the petition except one which is raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that there is delay between the prejudicial activities attributed to the petitioner and passing of the order of externment and as the delay has snapped live link between the prejudicial activities and purpose which is sought to be achieved by passing the impugned order, the reliefs claimed in the petition deserve to be granted. This ground of challenge is raised in para 13 of the petition. ( 7 ) MR. A. K. Sharma, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the externing authority. In para 4 of the affidavitin- reply, the facts which have been emphasised, are as under :- proposal to extern the petitioner was received on December 3, 1993. Thereafter show-cause notice dated December 8, 1993 was issued under the provisions of Sec. 59 (1) of the Act, wherein date of hearing was fixed on December 14, 1993. On december 14, 1993, the petitioner remained present and, therefore, his preliminary statement was recorded. The surety and personal bond executed by the petitioner were also accepted and the next date of hearing was fixed on December 29, 1993. On December 29, 1993, the petitioner submitted list of defence witnesses whom he wanted to examine. The list submitted by the petitioner was accepted and hearing was adjourned to January 8, 1994 to enable the petitioner to produce defence witnesses. Meanwhile, the officer who was handling the proceedings, was not well and proceeded on sick leave from January 6, 1994 and, therefore, hearing of case was adjourned. Again, on January 16, 1994 notice was issued to all concerned indicating that the next date of hearing was February 19, 1994. On February 18, 1994, the summons issued to the petitioner was received unserved, as the petitioner was not available. The case had, therefore, to be adjourned and by a letter dated february 28, 1994 the petitioner was informed that the next date of hearing was march 4, 1994. On February 18, 1994, the summons issued to the petitioner was received unserved, as the petitioner was not available. The case had, therefore, to be adjourned and by a letter dated february 28, 1994 the petitioner was informed that the next date of hearing was march 4, 1994. On March 4, 1994, the petitioner remained present, but his witnesses did not remain present and, therefore, the case was adjourned to March 17, 1994 to enable the petitioner to examine defence witnesses. On March 17, 1994, the petitioner remained present, but his Advocate was not available and, therefore, the petitioner sought adjournment, which was granted and the case was adjourned to March 22, 1994. Again, on March 22, 1994, the petitioner did not remain present with defence witnesses whose names were mentioned in the list submitted by him earlier, but remained present with certain other witnesses whose names were not mentioned in the list. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was informed to remain present with witnesses on March 28, 1994 whose names were mentioned in the list which was submitted by him on December 29, 1993. On March 28, 1994, the petitioner could produce only one defence witness who was examined and the case was adjourned to April 3, 1994 to enable the petitioner to examine other witnesses in his defence. On April 3, 1994, two defence witnesses were examined and the case was again adjourned to April 9, 1994. As the officer attending the externment proceedings had to go to Rajkot for investigating an offence, the case could not be taken up for hearing on April 9, 1994 and it was adjourned to April 17, 1994. On April 17, 1994, the petitioner produced two other defence witnesses who were examined and the case was adjourned to April 19, 1994. On April 19, 1994, the petitioner passed a purshis indicating that no further defence witnesses were to be examined. Accordingly, statement of the petitioner was recorded on April 19, 1994. By a notice dated May 2, 1994, the petitioner was called upon to file written statement within five days, but the petitioner filed written statement only June 13, 1994 after he was served with similar notice dated June 7, 1994. Accordingly, statement of the petitioner was recorded on April 19, 1994. By a notice dated May 2, 1994, the petitioner was called upon to file written statement within five days, but the petitioner filed written statement only June 13, 1994 after he was served with similar notice dated June 7, 1994. On June 29, 1994, assistant Commissioner of Police (East), Rajkot, who was dealing with case, sent proposal to the externing authority with recommendation to extern the petitioner and finally the order of externment was passed on July 20, 1994. ( 8 ) THE contention that there is delay in passing the externment order and, therefore, live link between prejudical activities attributed to the petitioner and purpose which is sought to be achieved by passing the externment order, is shapped, cannot be accepted. Ultimately, under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act it is subjective satisfaction of the externing authority which is relevant. Delay in passing order of externment is not ipso-facto fatal to the externment order, for in most of the cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. Having regard to scheme as envisaged by Secs. 56 and 59 of the Act, the proceedings are bound to linger on the file of the authority for sometime because not only reasonable opportunity of being heard is required to be afforded to the proposed externee, but proposed externee is also entitled to lead evidence of witnesses in his defence. The marshalling of the evidence of the witnesses, application of mind on the same and passing of the order after the arguments are finally heard, would obviously take some time. Therefore, delay in passing order of externment cannot be treated ipso-facto fatal to the externment order. In the present case, it is evident from the affidavit filed by Mr. A. K. Sharma, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot that proposal for initiating externment proceedings under Sec. 56 of the Act against the petitioner was received on December 3, 1993 and thereafter immediately notice under Sec. 59 of the Act was issued on December 8, 1993 whereby the first date of hearing was fixed on december 14, 1993. On December 14, 1993, the petitioner remained present and his preliminary statement was recorded and that case was adjourned to December 29, 1993. On December 14, 1993, the petitioner remained present and his preliminary statement was recorded and that case was adjourned to December 29, 1993. On December 29, 1993, the petitioner submitted list of defence witnesses which was accepted and thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time to enable the petitioner to examine defence witnesses. On one occasion, Advocate for the petitioner was not available and, therefore, the petitioner had to seek adjournment in the case. It was only on April 19, 1994 that the petitioner passed purshis indicating that he did not want to examine any other witnesses. Thereafter by a notice dated May 2, 1994 the petitioner was called upon to submit defence statement which was submitted by the petitioner on June 13, 1994. After considering the materials placed before him, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (East), Rajkot sent proposal on June 29, 1994 with recommendation to the externing authority to extern the petitioner. The externing authority ultimately passed the order of externment on July 20, 1994. In this case, it is neither argued nor demonstrated that the incidents alleged were not sufficiently proximate in time. If the externing authority on the basis of materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was engaged and was going to be engaged in the commission of offences referred to in Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, then only because there is some delay in passing order, it cannot be said that subjective satisfaction arrived at is wholly vitiated. This is more so in view of the order passed in appeal by the State Government confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot. By Sec. 60 of the Act, an appeal is provided in general terms and the State Government is expected to apply its independent mind to the materials placed before it and that too after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard either in person or through Advocate. In the present case, after considering the materials, the State Government also came to the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was engaged or was about to engage in commission of offences referred to in Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. Moreover, delay in passing the order of externment is satisfactorily explained on behalf of the externing authority. Moreover, delay in passing the order of externment is satisfactorily explained on behalf of the externing authority. Having regard to the prejudicial activities attributed to the petitioner and satisfactory explanation offered on behalf of the externing authority, it is not possible to conclude that delay in passing the order of externment has shapped live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose which is sought to be achieved by passing the impugned order. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, the impugned order of externment is not liable to be set aside on the ground that there is delay in passing the order of externment. As I do not find any substance in the sole ground advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. .