Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of externment dated 23.11.2009, passed by the Respondent No. 2, and confirmed by the Respondent No. 3, by order dated 21.9.2010 in Appeal No. 4 of 2010, externing the petitioner from the city of Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad (Rural), Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar Districts, for a period of two years, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable. 2. The competent Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”), issued show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the areas of Ahmedabad city, district Ahmedabad (Rural), Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar, for a period of two years on the ground that the petitioner is head strong person and keeping many associates, indulges into criminal activities of bootlegging and giving threats to the public, in the area of Ahmedabad City and in view of the fact that in all seven cases, under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Prohibition Act have been registered against him. However, the petitioner has not filed any reply to the said show cause notice and even he did not remain present before the competent Authority and ultimately by an order dated 23.11.2009 the petitioner was externed from the Ahmedabad city, districts Ahmedabad (Rural), Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar, for a period of two years. The competent Authority observed in his order that there are adequate materials on the record against the petitioner to extern him from the above districts on the ground that in the age of communication technology, the petitioner may indulge in similar nefarious activities and, therefore, his externment is necessary from the adjoining districts also. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2009, passed by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 60 of the Act before the Appellate Authority and raised various contentions, inter-alia, that the competent authority has passed an ex parte order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also submitted that previously also the order of externment was passed against the petitioner and in the Appeal, filed by the petitioner, the same was caused by the Appellate Authority. It was also submitted that previously also the order of externment was passed against the petitioner and in the Appeal, filed by the petitioner, the same was caused by the Appellate Authority. It was also contended that as the petitioner was busy in the treatment of his father, who was suffering from mentally disease and, therefore, he could not remain present at the time of hearing before the competent Authority. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of externment is required to be quashed and set aside. However, the Appellate Authority, after considering the submissions and on perusal of the documents on the record, confirmed the order of externment. 4. Both the above orders, dated 23.11.2009 passed by the competent Authority and the order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, have been challenged by the petitioner in this present petition. 5. Mr. Prajapati has contended that without any specific date and time of alleged incident of offence, the Authority has issued the show cause notice with false and fabricated allegations and the same is mechanical. He has contended that the father of the petitioner was hospitalized and, therefore, he could not remain present before the externing Authority and without appreciating the fact the Authority has passed the order of externment, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. He has contended that the Authority has not given any statement of independent witnesses showing his violent anti-social activities, nor stated any names and address of such independent witnesses. Learned Advocate has also contended that the externment order was passed on 23.11.2009 and since then the petitioner is residing out of Ahmedabad. He has contended that nearly about 1 year and 8 months have passed and, therefore, some mercy be shown towards the petitioner and the externment order passed against the petitioner, which is confirmed by the appellate Authority, may be quashed. 6. Learned APP Mr. Nanavati has contended that the orders passed by the competent Authority, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, are legal and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. 6. Learned APP Mr. Nanavati has contended that the orders passed by the competent Authority, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, are legal and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case and also the fact that after issuing the show cause notice the competent Authority has passed an order of externment without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Appellate Authority has not considered the fact that at the time of issuing show cause notice, the father of the petitioner was hospitalized and, therefore, the petitioner could not remain present before the competent Authority, and confirmed the order of the competent Authority. It is also pertinent to note that out of 2 years’ externment period, since 1 year and 8 months the petitioner has remained out of Ahmedabad. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by the competent Authority, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, are required to be quashed. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of externment dated 23.11.2009 passed against the petitioner, by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Respondent No. 2, confirmed by the Appellate Authority in Externment Appeal No. 4 of 2010, vide order dated 21.9.2010, are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P