1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3114 OF 2009 Shri Vijaykumar Shriramdulari Gautam : Petitioner V/s. The Principal Secretary of Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Rahul Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.A.S. Shitole, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority confirming the externment order against him. 2. A show cause notice under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Police Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Thane, Raigad, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of two years. This show cause notice was issued on 21.3.2009. 3. The petitioner appeared and pointed out that there is absolutely no apprehension and, therefore, necessary satisfaction under the relevant 2 statutory provisions cannot be arrived at so as to extern him. Disbelieving this explanation, the externing authority has passed an order of externment. It is stated that the petitioner residing at Ghotgaon, taluka Panvel, district Raigad, should be externed from Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District, Thane and Raigad. The period of externment is of two years. 4. Before the appellate authority and during the course of hearing, it was, inter alia, argued that the petitioner has been externed from these four districts when all that is alleged against him are some offences committed within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station in Raigad district. Therefore, if the petitioner is alleged to be a person involved in the activities resulting in commission of offences in Taloja, MIDC and other areas, how he could be externed from four districts and has been virtually prevented him even travelling within these districts. 5. The learned appellate authority has not at all adverted to these aspects as is clear from the reading of the order passed. All that the appellate authority has done is to reduce the period of internment from two years to six months. 6. To my mind, these are not happy state of affairs. A matter as 3 grave as an order of externment deserves serious and better consideration in appeal. Ultimately, it is the question of somebody’s liberty as well as the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and so also Article 19(1)(d) thereof. When such issues are at stake, then the appellate authority ought to apply its mind to all aspects of the matter and arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether the order of externment was at all necessary. Thereafter, its consideration to all aspects of the order of externment is necessary and only then it should conclude as to uphold it on the material produced. From a reading of the impugned order and several other orders of the same appellate authority, I am satisfied that there is no application of mind to these vital aspects. Even the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor finds it difficult to support the order. 7. For all these reasons, the order of the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner stands restored to the file of the appellate authority for being disposed of afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from today. 8. All concerned to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)