K.R. Shriram, J.

1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. The order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara Sub-Division, Satara has been challenged on various grounds.

2. That order which was passed on 20th April 2013 has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 4th June 2013. The Petitioner has been externed from the entire Satara District pursuant to this order for a period of two years.

3. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner took a preliminary objection that the Authority who has passed the externment order is not specifically empowered by the State Government and therefore order is without authority in law and jurisdiction because the Sub-Divisional Officer who has passed the order was not specifically empowered by the State Government by notification and in the official gazette.

4. The counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 1969 Guj.1 in the case of Sabuddin Sheikh Mansur V/s. J.S.Thakar And Anr. in which the Court has dealt with the interpretation of the expression “the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf” as used in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. In that judgment the Gujarat High Court dealt with the interpretation on the basis that the adverb “specially” qualifies the verb “empowered” and went to hold:

“9. Therefore, on the whole, we have come to the conclusion that, the correct interpretation of the expression which we have to construe is that, in order that there may be a special conferment of power under Section 56 aforesaid in regard to a Sub Divisional Magistrate, power must be conferred upon that officer either by his name or by virtue of his office. In either case, Government must have definitely before its mind's eye the particular individual or person who is being selected for the conferment of power. If that is not so, then, the officer is not specially empowered. On the other hand, in our judgment, if power is conferred upon the classes of Sub Divisional Magistrates, which will be the case if more than one particular individual is intended by the Government -- and specially so if the Government intends to empower the successors in office of the Sub Divisional Magistrates concerned--(then, it is a general conferment of power,”

5. The counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1956, SC 559 in the case of Hari Khemu Gawali Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. to support his contentions that order of externment can be passed only by a Commissioner of Police or a District Magistrate or a Sub Divisional Officer “specially” empowered by the State Government in that behalf. However, we do not see any reason to consider the issue as both these judgments are not relevant inasmuch as the word “specially” has been deleted by Mah.2 of 1994, s.2.

6. The Petitioner has also raised other grounds of rejection. It is the Petitioner's allegation that show cause notice is vague, principles of natural justice is violated, the Externing Authority has not taken into consideration the averments of the Petitioner, the externment order was passed without formation of opinion of subjective satisfaction, the ingredients of Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act is not mentioned in the notice or the order, that externment order is passed by considering extraneous material which are not part of notice and no particulars have been given regarding the in-camera statements etc.

7. In reply, the learned APP submitted that the principles of natural justice is not violated, the externment order was issued as per the provisions of Bombay Police Act and the witnesses are not approaching to give testimony against the Petitioner. According to the impugned order, it was also a preventive action taken to maintain peace in the said area and was of preventive nature and the Ex