JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Patel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent– State. Perused the record. 2. The record shows that when petitioner has preferred Externment Appeal No.50 of 2017 before the competent authority against his order of externment dated 14.2.2017 in Externment Case No.71 of 2017, still by impugned order dated 21.4.2017, the appellate authority has refused to stay the implementation and execution of externment order dated 14.2.2017. When such order was challenged in this petition, as back as on 28.4.2017, the co-ordinate Bench has already granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(B) whereby, implementation and execution of order dated 21.4.2017 was stayed. Such interim relief is in force till date. It is undisputed fact that order of externment u/s.56(c) is referring the FIR of the years 2013 and 2015 while considering the externment of the petitioner in the month of February, 2017. Therefore, when the competent authority has considered to extern the petitioner, failed to realise that such FIRs cannot be considered at such belated stage. It is also evident from record that atleast one of the case is only u/s.110(g) of the Cr.P.C., which never attracts to pass an order of externment. 3. In view of such facts and circumstances, when interim relief was in force for last couple of months, it may be appropriate to dispose of the petition confirming such interim relief till four weeks’ after the date of disposal of the appeal by the competent authority. 4. Thereby, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.4.2017 is quashed and set-aside, whereby prayer of the petitioner to stay the impugned order is granted. Now, the competent authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law. However, interim relief granted by this order shall remain in force for four weeks’ after the date of decision of such appeal. 5. The present Special Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute.