AbhayM. Thipsay, J.

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard finally forthwith.

2 By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, under the provisions of Section 56 (1)(a) and 56 (1)(b) of The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (Act No. XXII of 1951) [Previous short title changed by the Maharashtra (Change of Short Titles of Certain Bombay Acts) Act 2011, (Mah. Act No. 24 of 2012], (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and confirmed in appeal by the Secretary (Spl.), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra.

3 The petitioner is a resident of 425/26, Audogik Vasahat Zopadpatti, Pune. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 21/1/2013 under Section 59(1) of the said Act, informing him that it had been proposed to extern him from Pune City, Pune District and the adjoining five districts, for a period of two years and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be so externed. The notice referred to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of the said Act. It was alleged in the said notice that offences of serious nature had been registered against the petitioner, by referring to 3 criminal cases pending against him and that, the petitioner had no occupation, that he is addicted to liquor, that, therefore, he threatens persons passing by the road, that he was causing damage to public property etc.; and that because of his terror in the locality, people were not coming forward to lodge a report against him.

4 The petitioner appeared before the externing authority and filed his statement of defence. The petitioner, inter alia, denied the allegations made in the show cause notice against him and claimed that there were three cases pending against him and that in those cases he had been falsely implicated and that he would be acquitted from the said cases. The externing authority on 28/3/2013, passed the impugned order, externing the petitioner from limits of Pune city and Pune district for a period of two years under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of the said Act.

5 The appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 60 of the said Act was heard by the Secretary (Spl.) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, who by an order dated 4/6/2013 'rejected' the appeal.

6 We have heard Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.

M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the respondents. We have gone through the petition, the annexures thereto and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the externing authority.

7 A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner, such as, that the externment order is illegal; that it is malafide; that the petitioner was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to defend himself; that the order suffers from the vice of being excessive, etc. It is also contended that the show cause notice u/s 59 of the said Act, mentioned it to be a notice for action u/s 56(1) clauses (a) and (b) both, but that there was no mention in the notice of any activity carried out by the petitioner as would fall within clause (a) of the said sub-Section. It is also contended that the notice was defective as there was no clear mention under which part of clause (b), the petitioner was proposed to be externed.

8 We have carefully considered the matter.

9 There are 3 cases pending against the petitioner, as per the following details which are found in the show cause notice u/s 59 of the said Act.

10 In the view that, we are taking, it is not necessary to discuss the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition. In our opinion, there is one aspect of the matter that needs to be considered, though, such a point has not been specifically raised by the petitioner.

11 A perusal of the externment order shows that the externing authority has not applied its mind as to the pendenc