JUDGMENT & ORDER : A.J. Shastri, J. Draft amendment is allowed. The same shall carried out forthwith. 2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:- "(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned externment order dated 03.04.2018 being No. MAG/Externment Case/02/2018 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modasa in the interest of justice; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the externment order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modasa in the interest of justice; (D) Any other order/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be passed by this Hon'ble Court. " 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the show-cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 2 on 09.03.2018 upon the petitioner by branding him as a dangerous person as the petitioner has been arraigned in three FIRs registered before the Shamlaji Police Station, District:- Aravalli, one of 2013 and two of 2017 and for that in the month of March-2018 the show-cause notice was issued. 4. The petitioner, upon receipt of the said show-cause notice, has explained before the authority that out of three offences which are made foundation of an order of externment, all the three offences are pending for trial before the competent Court and further, one offence which has been taken note of is of the year 2010. It is also been contended that later on with respect to an offence of 2010, an order of acquittal came to be passed whereas, with respect to an offence which has been registered being I-CR No. 23 of 2017, the petitioner is not named and the said offence was filed against approximately 40 persons. The third offence being I-CR No. 30 of 2017 in which the petitioner though named but, the order of committal has been passed on 17.04.2018 and the case is pending and therefore, on the basis of this material, there is hardly any justification to extern the petitioner. The third offence being I-CR No. 30 of 2017 in which the petitioner though named but, the order of committal has been passed on 17.04.2018 and the case is pending and therefore, on the basis of this material, there is hardly any justification to extern the petitioner. Hence, by raising several contentions, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner and considering the material placed before the Court, the Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to pass the following order on 20.04.2018:- "Draft amendment is allowed as prayed for. Rule, returnable on 21.6.2018. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent State. Perused the record. The Externment order dated 3.4.2018 in Externment Case No.2 of 2018 is stayed so far as Sabarkantha, Mehsana, Banaskantha, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Panchmahal, Kheda, Anand, Mahisagar Districts and concerned a as well as Dungarpur District of adjoining Rajasthan State. However, petitioner is permitted to enter into Arvalli District to attend the Criminal Case for three days i.e. one day prior and one day after the actual date of hearing of the court, so also on three days i.e. one day prior and one day after the date when he has to mark presence before any police station in Aravalli District pursuant to any order by any competent authority. Direct service is permitted." 5. The Court while passing the said order has stayed the operation of the externment order in respect of Districts Sabarkantha, Mehsana, Banaskantha, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Panchmahal, Kheda, Anand, Mahisagar as well as Dungarpur District of adjoining State of Rajasthan and with respect to District Aravalli has passed a conditional order that the petitioner is permitted to enter into the same to attend the Criminal Case. With these background present petition has come up for consideration before this Court on 03.08.2018. 6. The learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that an order in question is passed without proper application of mind. With these background present petition has come up for consideration before this Court on 03.08.2018. 6. The learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that an order in question is passed without proper application of mind. It has further been contended that the initiation of externment process has been under purported exercise of powers under Section 56(B) of the Bombay Police Act which is ex-facie not applicable in view of the fact that none of the offences are related to either prohibition or gambling and therefore, the issuance of show-cause notice itself was without an authority of law whereas, the ultimate order is passed under Section 57(B) and therefore this is nothing but, an action without the authority of law. Apart from that, Mr. Sheth, the learned advocate has further contended that undisputedly, there are no other offences nor any material whatsoever in which the petitioner can be shunted for and externed from other contiguous district. The notice has been issued for six districts whereas, the order is passed by the authority externing the petitioner from eleven districts and passed an order beyond his territorial jurisdiction by externing the petitioner from the adjoining District Dungarpur of State of Rajasthan and therefore, there is a serious prejudice caused to the petitioner in making the effective representation with respect to other districts and it is not justified that notice has issued for six districts only and the order has passed ultimately for eleven districts and that itself reflects a clear arbitrary act suffers from the vice of malafide and predetermined approach of the authority and therefore an order in question is required to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. 7. The learned advocate Mr. Sheth has further contended that so far as first offence is concerned, which has made the foundation of an externment order was lodged before the Shamlaji Police Station being ICR No. 60 of 2018 in which the case was committed in the month of August-2010 in which the petitioner is acquitted. 7. The learned advocate Mr. Sheth has further contended that so far as first offence is concerned, which has made the foundation of an externment order was lodged before the Shamlaji Police Station being ICR No. 60 of 2018 in which the case was committed in the month of August-2010 in which the petitioner is acquitted. Apart from this, so far as second offence is concerned it has been submitted that the said offence is registered as I-CR No. 23 of 2017 before the Shamlaji Police Station in which the petitioner has not been named nor any specific role is attributed and the said offence was registered against as many as 40 persons and with respect to the third offence being I-CR No. 30 of 2017 registered before the Shamlaji Police Station, the role is not specifically attributed of such a serious nature which would result into externment of the petitioner from as many as eleven districts and therefore, the authority has exercised the jurisdiction as a power charged authority with predetermined attitude against the petitioner. Hence, the order in question requires to be quashed and set aside. 8. Further it has been contended that despite the fact that this Court has issued notice way-back in the month of April-2018, so far no affidavit-in-reply is filed controverting the contention of the petitioner and therefore, based upon such non-controverting the contention, the order of authority deserves to be quashed. Mr. Sheth, the learned advocate to strengthen his case, relied upon a decision delivered by this Court reported in 1989 (2) GLR 1429 covering the contentions and therefore, ultimately has requested the Court not to allow such illegal order to be sustained against the petitioner. No other submissions have been made. 9. To meet with the stand taken by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the authority has vehemently contended that the order is passed in substantial compliance of principles of natural justice and therefore when every material is considered of the petitioner while arriving at a subjective satisfaction, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the conclusion which has been arrived at by the authority. Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the authority has vehemently contended that the order is passed in substantial compliance of principles of natural justice and therefore when every material is considered of the petitioner while arriving at a subjective satisfaction, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the conclusion which has been arrived at by the authority. Mr. Amin has contended that yardstick for exercising jurisdiction for externment is not a number of cases but the role which has been played by the petitioner is the real test and therefore when the petitioner himself arraigned in commission of crime repeatedly, the authority has arrived at a decision to extern the petitioner. The authority while coming to this conclusion has considered the material and this subjective satisfaction with application of mind can hardly be called in question at the instance of the petitioner. As a result of this, the learned public prosecutor has requested the Court to dismiss the present petition. No further submissions have been made. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record it has been found by the Court, and it is not in dispute that three offences which have been made the foundation of exercise of jurisdiction i.e. one FIR is of the year 2010 and other two FIRs are of the year 2017 and for the first time the initiation of process has taken place in the month of March-2018 i.e. after couple of months and therefore, had there been any such serious apprehension, the authority appears to have taken prompt action against the petitioner which promptness has remained unexplained in the present proceeding. 11. 11. Yet another circumstance which is not possible to be digested is that show cause-notice has been given to the petitioner with respect to six districts whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to justify his stand whereas in the ultimate order passed by the authority, it is revealed that some eleven districts are covered from where the petitioner is externed and therefore undisputedly there appears to be no effective representation or no opportunity was given to the petitioner while passing the ultimate order and therefore his right of effective representation is jeopardize with respect to other districts then which are mentioned in show-cause notice and therefore, this is another example of violation of principles of natural justice, as no effective representation remedy was made available to the petitioner. 12. Yet another circumstance which is very much reflecting from the material is that show-cause notice which is made foundation of the three complaints are related to Shamlaji Police Station only and there are no other material circumstance reflecting about his involvement in other districts and therefore, in the absence of any justifiable material to infer apprehension against the petitioner, there is hardly any case made out by the authority to sustain the action against the petitioner. 13. Yet another circumstance which has been noticed by the Court is that not only the show-cause notice was issued for six districts and the order is passed with respect to eleven districts but, one additional factor is that the authority has traveled beyond the scope of its territorial jurisdiction. Since the order indicates that the petitioner is also externed from Dungarpur District of State of Rajasthan where undisputedly, the respondent authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order covering the area of different State and therefore also the very exercise is vitiated on account of non-application of mind. Hence, the order deserves to be quashed on this count alone. 14. Yet another contention which is possible to be accepted is that a decision delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 1989 (2) GLR 1429 . The externment notice must contain sufficient material so as to enable the citizen to meet with this opportunity of offering explanation and that exactly happened here in the present case. 14. Yet another contention which is possible to be accepted is that a decision delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 1989 (2) GLR 1429 . The externment notice must contain sufficient material so as to enable the citizen to meet with this opportunity of offering explanation and that exactly happened here in the present case. Since, the notice is issued for a different material with respect to other district whereas the order passed is with respect to eleven districts and therefore considering the proposition of law which has been laid down, this Court is of the opinion that reliance placed by the learned advocate appeared to be justified. Accordingly, the entire exercise appeared to be without any proper application of mind. The learned advocate has also relied upon the other orders of Co-ordinate Bench as well as Devision Bench of this Court. The same has also found a positive relevance in favour of the petitioner. 15. As a result of this, the Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.