1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2800 OF 2009 Maqsood Raj Mohamed Shaikh. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. A.S. Deshbhratar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – 1, Thane & Anr. . ... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b. Vinayak Katti for the Petitioner. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 25th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- In these proceedings, the Petitioner has challenged the order of Externing Authority. While it is true that the Petitioner has approached this Court directly without filing an Appeal, considering the peculiar facts of this case and the only ground on which the order is challenged, I have entertained this Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Marwadi, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed. That show cause notice is dated 15th July 2009. Mr. Marwadi submits that after receipt of this notice, a detailed parawise reply has been given thereto and it is on the file of the concerned authority. Apart from denying 2 the allegations, it is stated by the Petitioner that he himself is a victim of the communal disturbances at Rabodi. He has not taken any part in any of the offences much less serious offences alleged in the show cause notice. 3. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the externment order is passed without hearing him and without consideration of the reply forwarded by the Petitioner. 4. The learned APP while not disputing that the Petitioner was not present at the hearing urged that the authority gave ample opportunity to the Petitioner but ultimately it decided the matter on the basis of available material. She submits that the Externing Authority concluded that the Petitioner is deliberately remaining absent although duly intimated about the date of hearing. 5. Considering that the order of externment which has been passed on 29th September 2009 externs the Petitioner for a period of one year from Thane, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban limits so also “Navi Mumbai”, in my view, interest of justice would be served if this order is set aside with a direction that the Petitioner shall appear before the externing authority on 3rd February 2010 and the externing authority will, after hearing the Petitioner and perusing the record, pass an order afresh within a period of 15 days from the date of appearance of the Petitioner. The externing authority should not be influenced by any of the observations in the earlier 3 order but must independently apply its mind and decide the proceedings. The externing authority should bear in mind that Navi Mumbai is not a District by itself but part of Thane District. Therefore, while issuing any directions, it must apply its mind to this aspect of the matter. 6. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and arguments in that behalf are kept open. The Petition is allowed in these terms. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)