S.B. Shukre, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 24th December, 2012 passed under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Nashik City externing the petitioner from the limits of Nasik City and Nasik Rural for a period of two years, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority on 22nd March, 2013.

2. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it is based upon extraneous material of which no notice was given to the petitioner and that in-camera statements of witnesses were vague, in as much as the dates on which they were recorded were not disclosed, resulting in causing of prejudice to the defence of the petitioner.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to meet the case against him and that the show cause notice issued to him disclosed in sufficient details, the allegations against him. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner's activities have been found to be prejudicial to the peace and harmony of the society and that there was a reasonable apprehension that he would again engage himself in perpetrating violent acts against the peace loving members of the society, therefore, it is submitted that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., we have carefully gone through the petition, all the documents, annexures, including the impugned order and the order of the appellate authority. We have also carefully considered the affidavit in reply.

6. It is seen from the impugned order that the foundation has been has been two crimes registered against the petitioner namely, Crime Nos.31/2011 and 333/2011 and some allegations made against him by two witnesses (a) & (b) that he has committed certain acts of violence against them.

7. These crime numbers as well general nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner by these two witnesses do find mention in the show cause notice, but, what is lacking in the show cause notice is something which goes to the root of the whole matter. The places of occurrence of the alleged incidents, as stated by the witnesses (a) & (b), have not been mentioned specifically in the show cause notice. Similarly, the dates on which the statements of these two witnesses were recorded in-camera also do not find any place in the show cause notice. These are material facts which ought to have been mentioned in the show cause notice to enable the petitioner to know the exact nature of the case against him so as to put forward his defence in an effective manner. We, therefore, find that the principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case and the petitioner has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to meet the case against him.

8. Affording of a reasonable opportunity to a person against whom an order having serious consequences for his life or liberty is to be passed, is a sine qua non for passing of the order. This Court has consistently taken such a view on several occasions in the past. In the case of Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1999) Vol 101(1) Bom. L.R. 63, referred to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge had reiterated it. However, despite that, the D.C.P. Zone-2, Nasik has repeated the same mistake. We only expect that the authorities concerned shall atleast in future pay their due attention to the law laid down by this court and follow it in letter and spirit.

9. There is another ground mentioned in the impugned order. It refers to two crime numbers registered against the petitioner with Nasik road polic