A.P. Bhangale, J.

1. Rule. Heard finally by consent. Perused the record.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is cable operator by profession. Police Inspector Mr. Mangalsingh Suryavanshi of Sinnar Police station harbored personal grudge against the Petitioner and initiated false externment proceedings on the basis of false cases. According to the Petitioner on 25-12-2010 he had gone to Vaishnavi Dhaba at Sinnar – Goti Highway, to have food. The Petitioner came to know of some incident had happened outside a Company near that Dhaba. One unknown man was lying dead The Petitioner and others went to see what had happened. P.I Mangalsingh was present there who started abusing the Petitioners and others. Petitioner had objected the police inspector Mangalsingh who had abused the people as well as friends of the Petitioner, over their Mother and Sister. Petitioner was then indicted in the false Murder case by said Mangalsingh who was bent upon to take revenge upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested, remanded for few days and then was released on Bail on 05-02-2011 by the Sessions Court.. On 01-10-2011 show-cause notice was slapped upon the Petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, proposing action under section 56(1) (b) of the said Act to extern the Petitioner from the limits of Districts of Nashik, Ahmadnagar, Dhule, Jalgaon for the period of two years. On 13-04-2012, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order of externment, externing the Petitioner from the limits of Nashik for period of two years. The appeal preferred against the externment order was also dismissed by Principal Secretary (Home) State of Maharashtra at Mantralaya, Mumbai. Hence Petition is filed impugning the externment order.

3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the impugned externment order is illegal, malafide and bad in law. There was no application of mind and the order was issued mechanically in most cavalier manner. Case under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also taken in to consideration for to form subjective satisfaction as to extern the Petitioner. It is submitted that three cases alleged against the Petitioner are pending and the Petitioner is on bail. There is no conviction in the past and no any instance of misuse or abuse of personal liberty. Without resorting to normal remedy available at law i.e. cancellation of bail, the State took drastic action of externment without any valid and sound reason. The order was passed after unexplained and gross delay in respect of the alleged incidents of the year 2010. Learned Advocate prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned APP Shri Yagnik sought to defend the externment proceeding and contended that the impugned order of externment was passed in view of the four pending criminal cases giving rise to alarm and danger to the peace and order in the society. He prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

5. It is settled principle that to pass externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, the extending authority Police Commissioner or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, must record his judicious satisfaction that:-

(i) The acts of the person are causing or calculated to cause willful danger or harm to the person or property or that there are reasonable grounds that he is engaged or about to be engage in the commission of an offences under Chapters XVI and XVII I.P.C. And

(ii) In the opinion of the officer, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence and unless such an opinion is formed by the officer, he cannot pass the order for externment of the person 6. We find that the Show cause notice dated 01-10-2011 was observed merely as a formality which mentioned about the proposal to extern received from the Sinnar police station on the ground of four pending criminal cases including a case under the Motor vehicles Act reported at Sinnar police station. It contained omnibus alleg