IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2009 Rajesh Mahadu Tare ...Petitioner vs. Anupkumar Singh and another ...Respondents Mr.Sarang Kotwal for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for State CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Learned A.P.P. Waives service for the respondent. 2 The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 15 th April 2008 passed by the first respondent. By the said order, the first respondent purportedly exercised power under section 56(1) (A) (B) of the Bombay Police Act,1951 directing that the petitioner shall be externed from Districts of Thane and Bombay Suburban for a period of two years. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. By order dated 14 th July 2008, the Appellate Authority modified the order of externment by reducing the period of externment from two years to one year. 3 Apart from other submissions on meritS, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police calls upon the petitioner to show 1 cause as to why he should not be externed from District of Thane. However, the order of externment extends to not only the District Thane but also to Bombay Suburban District. Thus, there is a clear breach of principles natural justice and the order is excessive. The learned A.P.P. Submitted that the petitioner did not raise this contention before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no merit in the said contention. 4 I have considered the submissions. An order of externment affects the liberty of an individual. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner calls upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the area falling within the District of Thane but the impugned order relates not only to the District of Thane but also to the Bombay Suburban District. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard as regards the order of externment in so far as it extends to the Bombay Suburban District. Thus, this was a case where there is a clear breach of principles of natural justice. Once the order is vitiated due to breach of principles of natural justice, the fact that the said point was not canvassed before Appellate Authority is of no relevance. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : . Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). JUDGE 2