JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is the externee, has challenged the order of externment dated 19.8.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in Hadpari Case No. PCB/HADAP/116 of 2016 as well as order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.372 of 2016. 2. The Deputy Police Commissioner issued a notice under section 59 of the Act to the petitioner detenue inter alia alleging in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specific allegation in the notice that the petitioner detenue was doing all these activities with the help of his associates within the jurisdiction of concerned Police Station. 3. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. After examining the explanation, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order of externment on 19.8.2016 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area falling in the Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana. The petitioner preferred appeal under section 60 of the Act. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that there is delay in passing the externment order passed by the externing authority and therefore, the order of externment should be quashed. It is also submitted by him that the authorities concerned have mechanically passed the order and externed the petitioner after the delay. 5. A specific point is taken by the petitioner in this petition contending that the order of externment has been passed after lapse of time from the date of issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, the order of externment has been passed without considering the necessity to extern the petitioner after such lapse of time and, therefore, the same is without any application of mind. The petitioner has pointed out that since the petitioner has been externed with reference to two cases, the competent authority has failed to appreciate that first is of the year 2013, whereas, in the second case of 2014, the petitioner has already been acquitted as it is admitted in the impugned order itself. It is undisputed fact that order of externment is dated 19.8.2016. 6. In court's considered opinion, there is much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is undisputed fact that order of externment is dated 19.8.2016. 6. In court's considered opinion, there is much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In externing a person which is in public interest, the authorities are expected to act promptly and if the matter is delayed, the same will exhibit that there is no urgent need and no necessity to extern a person from a particular locality or a district. The externment order restricts or curtails the freedom of the movement of a person concerned and therefore, any lapse/delay on the part of authority concerned cannot be permitted and the benefit will go to the party concerned and on that ground, the externee will be entitled to the benefit of quashing of such order of externment. Judgment of acquittal dated 30.5.2016 is produced on record at Annexure-C. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The order of externment dated 19.8.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in Hadpari Case No. PCB/HADAP/116 of 2016 as well as order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.372 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.