S.B. Shukre, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15th October, 2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara, externing the petitioner from the limits of Satara District for a period of 2 years and also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 22nd March, 2013 confirming the externment order.

2. This petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondents.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been served with any show cause notice and has been denied an opportunity to defend himself in the externment proceedings initiated against him. He further argued that mother of the petitioner had informed the inquiry officer, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Satara about his inability to attend the proceedings due to mental illness of the petitioner but that was ignored by the inquiry officer as well as the externing authority and inquiry was held without hearing the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been externed under Section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, but requirement of sub-section 1(a) has not at all been fulfilled in this case. He has, therefore, submitted that the entire proceedings have been vitiated due to non observance of principles of natural justice and non fulfillment of the basic requirement of law and as such, both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the impugned order itself gives details about repeated attempts made for service of the notice and also justification for serving show cause notice by substitute mode of service and, therefore, according to him, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed in this behalf hold no water. He has further submitted that it has been properly considered by the externing and appellate authorities that apart from the pendency of several criminal cases against the petitioner, the petitioner had been convicted in Crime No.229/05 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code due to which reasonable apprehension had arisen about likelihood of the petitioner again engaging himself in the commission of similar offence. Therefore, according to him, there is no scope for any interference by this Court in the instant matter.

6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, we have carefully gone through the memo of the petition and documents annexed to it, including the impugned orders and we are of the opinion that there is great substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and no merit in the arguments canvassed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

7. It is seen from the first impugned order dated 15th October, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara that neither the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in the externment proceedings bearing No.1/12 moved at the instance of Police Inspector, Satara City police station could be served upon the petitioner nor the further show cause notice dated 24th August, 2012 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara was served upon the petitioner. It is further seen from the first impugned order that the mother of the petitioner had informed the inquiry officer that the petitioner who was mentally ill was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment and that she would produce him before the inquiry officer after he got cured of his illness and yet the inquiry officer, for strange reasons, proceeded with the inquiry in absence of the petitioner. It appears that he proceeded on the ground that medical certificate was not produced. But, if tha