JUDGMENT : J.R. Vora, J. By way of filing this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st December, 2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amreli, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from the districts of Amreli, Junagadh and Rajkot. The order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 but the appeal came to be partly allowed vide order dated 22nd July, 2004 to the extent that though the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate externing the petitioner for 2 years from District of Amreli was confirmed but the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate to extern the petitioner from adjoining District of Junagadh and Rajkot came to be quashed. 2. A show-cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act came to be served upon the petitioner on the ground that four cases under the Prohibition Act for possession of illicit liquor were filed against the petitioner and one crime registered against the petitioner under I.P.C. From the material placed before the externing authority he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a headstrong person and was harassing innocent citizens and the public. Due to his fear nobody dares to file any complaint or offer deposition against him and for the maintenance of public order it was necessary to prevent the antisocial activities of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice and offered defence by way of witnesses. After considering the material on record, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amreli, passed the order against the petitioner for externing him as aforesaid, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. The learned advocate, Mr Saiyed, for the petitioner and learned APP, Mr H.M. Prachchhak, for the respondent were heard at length. 5. From the rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and opposed by the learned APP it appears that this matter can be examined and disposed of on the sole ground as to whether there was proper application of mind on the part of the externing authority to the relevant materials properly. 6. 5. From the rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and opposed by the learned APP it appears that this matter can be examined and disposed of on the sole ground as to whether there was proper application of mind on the part of the externing authority to the relevant materials properly. 6. In the present case in the show-cause notice the externing authority took into consideration one crime registered on 26th April, 2002 against the petitioner being Crime Register No.79/2002 at Bagasara Police Station for the offences under Section 307, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The notice under Section 59 came to be issued on 19th September, 2003 against the petitioner. However, the record reveals that in the said offence the petitioner was acquitted on 5th March, 2003 i.e. before even issuance of the notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. Consequently, the externing authority took into consideration the crime registered against the petitioner in which he was admittedly acquitted by the Court competent and thus the externing authority has not applied its mind to a very relevant circumstance resulting in non application of mind by the externing authority to the relevant material. The facts of the case are covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Suleman Husa Devji v. State of Gujarat reported in 1989 (1) GLR 101 in which the Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph no.4 as under:- "4. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the externing authority has not applied its mind to a very relevant circumstance, which would have shown that witnesses are forthcoming for the purposes of giving evidence against the petitioner. On the other hand, the externing authority has mechanically applied its mind and has wrongly stated that the case registered at Crime Register No.58 of 1986 is pending trial. The fact clearly reveals that the said Crime Register No.58 of 1986 was tried by the Court and the petitioner has been acquitted in that case. This is a clear case of non-application of mind by the externing authority and it also spells out the mechanical way in which the externing authority has passed the order of externment. This single instance itself is sufficient to quash the order of externment. This is a clear case of non-application of mind by the externing authority and it also spells out the mechanical way in which the externing authority has passed the order of externment. This single instance itself is sufficient to quash the order of externment. In view of this glaring mistake committed by the externing authority, it is not necessary for us to go into the other contentions such as failure of natural justice, mala fides and denial of opportunity to hear the witnesses." In above view of the matter, the order under challenge of the externing authority as well as the order of appellate authority confirming partly the order of the externing authority, both are required to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. In the result, for the reasons aforesaid the petition is allowed. The order dated 1.12.2003, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amreli, in Externment Case No.13 of 2003 against the petitioner removing him from the District of Amreli and as confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the appellate authority on 22nd July, 2004 is also quashed to the extent the same confirms the order passed by the exerting authority to remove the petitioner from the District of Amreli. Rule is made absolute. D.S. is permitted. Rule made absolute.