JUDGMENT P.S. Poti, C.J.
1. Though many questions are sought to be raised by counsel for the petitioner after hearing him we feel that all these questions are covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sarjubhaiya v. Dy. Commr. of Police XXV (1) GLR 538. Therefore, we are not called upon to decide the questions. The only other question which did not directly arise in that case and which is urged before us by counsel concerns the plea that the externment order is bad for the reason that it does not indicate independent reasons for externing the petitioner not only from the district of his activities, but also from contiguous districts. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Vrajalal v. D.M. Rajkot III GLR 809, Lalji Kanji v. V.T. Shah IV GLR 668 and Mamad Kala v. State XIV GLR 384 counsel contends that whenever an externing authority chooses to direct extemment from not only the district within which the person against whom the order is passed is seen to be active, but also contiguous districts the reason why such externment order should operate even in regard to such contiguous districts should be shown in the notice preceding the order as well as in the order.
2. Of course that must be so, for if a person confines his activities to a particular district there would be no justification to extern him not only from that district, but from adjoining districts also unless it is shown that circumstances warrant such a course. Maybe that the nature of his activities are such that he will have mobility to continue his activities by shifting his headquarters to the neighbouring districts wherefrom he could operate as efficiently as before. But this cannot be assumed. As observed in the Full Bench decision in Mamad Kala v. State XIV GLR 384 it is not for the Court to fill up the lacuna in the material noticed by the externing authority by assuming that there must be some reason for externing from contiguous districts also. That must be indicated by the externing authority. Therefore, if in this case there had been no material showing the reason for externing from contiguous districts also we would have been justified in interfering with the order. But having gone through the notice we find that it has been stated in the notice that it would facilitate operation if the petitioner is not removed from contiguous districts also. Hence we find no reason vacating the order. Hence rule discharged.
3. Status quo will continue for a period of one month from today.The petitioner's counsel seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. In view of the fact that we have granted leave against the decision in Sarjubhaiya v. Dy. Commr. of Police XXV (I) GLR 538 we certify this as a fit case for appeal and grant leave.