1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Panvel, District Raigad who has passed the externment order.

3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 20th September, 2010 externing him from the territories of Districts Raigad, Thane, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Subarban District for the period of one year.

4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition and the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Ankush R.Shinde, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned order.

5. Senior Inspector of Police, Panvel City Police Station submitted a proposal on 19th September, 2009 to the Externing Authority for initiating action under Section 51 (1)(a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, being a bully operating in the localities of Panvel city and areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of Panvel City Police Station. It is alleged that the petitioner was indulging in unlawful assembly and rioting, damaging the property and causing grievous hurt and had subjected the victims to torture and atrocities and due to this reason the witnesses are not willing to come forward to complain against him apprehending danger to their person and property. While submitting the proposal for externment reliance was placed by Senior Inspector of Police on the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as to his involvement in three criminal cases registered with Panvel City Police Station. Reliance was also placed on the incamera statements recorded during the confidential inquiries. Said incamera statements were recorded on 27th August,2009 and 31st August, 2009.

6. On scrutiny of the proposal and the relevant material, directions were given to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panvel Division to hold inquiries and to issue show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

7. Show cause notice was issued against the petitioner dated 26th October, 2009 requiring the presence of the petitioner on 30th October, 2009. However, the petitioner remained present before the Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 2009 and submitted his written say. Thereafter, matter was adjourned from time to time on the request of the petitioner and ultimately adjourned to 21st November, 2009 when the petitioner remained absent and could not be contacted even on his mobile when police staff was sent to his residence. It was found out that he had gone to pilgrimage for 15 days. Thereafter, also matter was adjourned from time to time and letter, dated 24th May, 2010, was addressed to the petitioner issued by the Inquiry Officer asking the petitioner to remain present on 5th June, 2010. However, thereafter also the petitioner remained absent and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30th July, 2010 to the Externing Authority.

8. Externing Authority issued a notice dated 6th August, 2010 asking for attendance of the petitioner on 13th August, 2010. Accordingly, the petitioner remained present and his statement was recorded by the Externing Authority. Thereafter, on appreciating the material available against the petitioner, externment order dated 20th September, 2010 was passed against the petitioner. It appears that said externment order was served on the petitioner on 20th November, 2010.

9. Challenge to the externment order is on the following grounds.

(i) In-camera statements did not give any material particulars. Hence, there is deprival of effective representation.

(ii) Externment order was served on the petitioner belatedly after two months. It shows that there was no extreme urgency for initiating action of externment under section 56 of the Bombay