1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2009 Jayashree @ Kalyani Umesh Deshpande ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ------ Mrs. Pranali Kakade for Petitioner Mr.S.V.Gajare- APP for State ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 5TH MAY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner has been externed by the order of externment passed by the Externing Authority dated 5th August, 2008 and which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 6th March, 2009. By virtue of the said order, the Petitioner has been externed for a period of two years. 3. Firstly, it is submitted that there is a gross delay of 10 months in passing the said order and no explanation has been given for the delay caused in passing the said order. Secondly, it is submitted 2 that the cases which are mentioned in the show cause notice, the Petitioner has not been convicted for the said offences and these offences are under the PITA Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that provisions of sections 56 and 57 of the Externment Act are not attracted. 4. The learned APP for the State submitted that after the show cause notice was issued, thereafter, in one of the cases mentioned in the show cause notice the Applicant was arrested and detained,and, therefore, there was a delay in passing the said order. It was further submitted that since the Petitioner was involved in the cases of PITA, the grounds of detention mentioned in section 56 are clearly attracted. 5. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned APP for the State. If the Petitioner was arrested for the offences mentioned in the show cause notice, there was no occasion for the Externing Authority to pass an order of externment. Delay of 10 months, therefore, in my view in passing the said order has not been explained and, as such,it suffers from vice of stainless and on that ground alone the order is liable to be quashed. Apart from that, the show cause notice indicates that the Petitioner 3 alleged to have been committed offences under section 57 of the PITA Act but for the said offences the Applicant has not been convicted and as such, provisions of section 57 are not attracted and also none of the grounds under the provisions of section 56(1) (A) (B) would not be attracted. 7. Therefore, the order of externment passed by the Externing Authority dated 5th August, 2008 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 6th March, 2009 is quashed and set aside. In any case, out of the two years , the Petitioner has been externed for more than 1 year and 9 months. Under these circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)