1 wp no. 1486 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITOIN NO. 1486 OF 2010 Shri. Bhushan @ Akash Prakash Londhe ... Petitioner Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Police and anr.... Respondents Mr. U.N. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. This writ petition challenges the notice dated 22nd April, 2010 issued by the State under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why externment proceedings be not taken against him. The Petitioner has not replied the show cause notice. He has directly filed the present petition to challenge the same. The main ground of challenge to the show cause notice is that the grounds stated in the impugned show cause notice are the same as the grounds in the earlier show cause notice on the basis of which externment authority had passed the order of externment dated 24th September, 2010. The Petitioner had challenged the 2 wp no. 1486 of 2010 externment order by filing the appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the State Government. The appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 18th March, 2010. The appellate authority found technical flaws in the order. It was contended before the appellate authority that the appellant did not have an opportunity of hearing because on the date of hearing before the externing authority he could not remain present. The appellate authority also found that the order passed was excessive in as much as it was extended apart from Nashik city and Nashik rural to also districts of Ahmednagar and Thane rural. The appellate authority therefore, set aside the order but remanded the matter for disposal with direction that the fresh notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act be issued to the petitioner. Accordingly the State has issued notice impugned in the present petition. 2. Since the order of remand of the case for disposal with specific direction by the authority is permissible under section 16(3) of the Bombay Police Act, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the impugned notice is bad as it contains the same ground for externment as in the earlier notice. 3. It has next been contended by the learned counsel that the 3 wp no. 1486 of 2010 impugned notice seems to be further excessive as in the notice the respondent has in addition to earlier districts sought to extern the appellant from the district of Dhulia also. The externing authority is yet to hear the appellant and pass its orders. It would not be appropriate to presume at this stage that the externment authority will once again pass the excessive order externing the petitioner from the district of Dhulia as well. In the circumstances, petition is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)