S.B. Shukre, J.

1 By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by respondent No.1 – the appellate authority confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 on 15th January, 2013 externing the petitioner under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of one year, from Kolhapur District.

2 This petition has been finally heard at the stage of admission with the consent of parties. Hence, rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service of the notice.

3 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Anand S. Patil, and Mr.A.S.Gadkari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

4 The main contentions raised before us on behalf of the petitioner are that, the impugned orders dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the appellate authority and 15th January, 2013 passed by the externing authority Kolhapur, suffer from serious illegalities and arbitrariness. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of the externing authority is based upon such a material as is not sufficient to record a satisfaction under Section 55 of the Act. He has submitted that, Section 55 contemplates action against a gang or body of persons and, therefore, requires that each of the members of gang or body of persons should be found to have indulged in similar criminal activities and that the final action is also required to be taken against each of the members thereof. However, he submits, such is not the case here and it can be easily found out from the impugned order dated 15th January, 2013 that the material relied upon for externing the petitioner was quite different to the one referred to in relation to the other alleged members of the gang. He further submits that the impugned order is also discriminatory and arbitrary for the reason that the final action of externment has been taken only against the present petitioner, although 5 other persons were stated to be members of the gang allegedly formed by the petitioner.

5 The petitioner's other contentions relate to non-supply of copies of the reports dated 9th February, 2010 and 16th March, 2011 submitted by the Police Inspector, Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur, to respondent No.2, thereby denying an opportunity to the petitioner of properly defending himself, the offences relied upon by the externing authority being stale and of minor nature, the petitioner having been acquitted in 17 out of 26 criminal cases, that the petitioner has been given conviction with minor sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court in only one crime, the other 8 criminal cases still pending at the time of passing of the impugned orders and that the order of externment of one year being excessive and unwarranted.

6 Learned A.P.P. for the State, opposing the petition, has submitted that the externing authority has passed a detailed order and has taken into account the entire graph of criminal activities of the petitioner right from the year 2006 till the year 2011. He has submitted that, in all 43 criminal cases have been found to be registered against the petitioner and it is not the law that mere pendency of criminal cases is irrelevant for recording a satisfaction that movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons, is causing or calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body of persons or by members thereof. According to him, registration of various criminal cases consistently over a long period of time, will be extremely relevant for finding that the gang or body of persons is most likely to entertain unlawful designs and, therefore, it would be necessary for the concerned authority to prevent such gang or body of persons from giving effect to those designs by passing an appropriate order under Section 55 of the Act. He further submits that, sufficient opportunity has been given to the pet