IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2010 MAHESH BHAGWAN PATIL & ANR. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARAHSHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENT S Mr. G. K. Sovani for the petitioner Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED: 28th January, 2010 P.C. The petitioner has inter alia prayed that Show Cause Notice dated 18/9/09 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1956, be quashed and set aside. 2. Learned APP informs us that the 1st respondent has passed an order dated 26/11/09 externing the petitioner from the jurisdiction of Mumbai, Thane, Pune and Raigad. Since the externment order is already passed that order will have to be challenged. The petition raising challenge to the show cause notice has, therefore, become infructuous. 3. So far as the challenge to the externment order is concerned, the petition lies before learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that a larger issue is involved in this petition. The petitioner wants to seek certain directions from this Court. He states that the authority which passes the externment order must stay the externment order so that the petitioner can challenge it. Whether to stay the externment order or not is entirely the discretion of the authority which passes the order of externment. It is not possible for us to interfere with that discretion. An appeal is provided under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act which the petitioner can prefer and obtain a stay order in accordance with law. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the order externing the petitioner has not been made available to the petitioner. Undisputedly externment order must be made available to the externees. However, learned APP states that the respondents are making all efforts to serve the order of externment to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is not available. He is evading service. The petitioner cannot adopt such approach. If he wants to challenge the order, he must make himself available for service of the order. 5. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to entertain the petition. The petition is disposed of. 6. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the externment order in accordance with law after it is served on him. On the merits of the case, we have expressed no opinion. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)