S.B. Shukre, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1 on 31st August, 2012, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the same.

2. We have heard Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saste, learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and so confusing that it is not capable of being complied with by the petitioner. He submits that the operative part of the impugned order is mechanical and stereotyped which is evident from the failure of the externing authority to score of one of the options between “year” and “month”, the period for which the petitioner is sought to be externed from the limits of Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District. He has submitted that the figure of “02” has been filled in blanks appearing before “year / month” in the first paragraph of the operative order of the impugned order without indicating the month or year for which the petitioner has been externed. He further submits that because of such nature of the order, the petitioner even could not prefer an appeal and has elected to prefer the present writ petition before this Court. He has further submitted that the impugned order is based upon extraneous material and the externing authority had taken into account one Crime No.175/12 registered against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code with Nirmalnagar police station on 30th July, 2012 in respect of which there was no reference in the show cause notice dated 23rd January, 2012, which has denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defending his case in the matter. He has further submitted that the impugned order also does not record a satisfaction that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner out of fear, a mandatory requirement of law.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has fairly conceded that the impugned order is vague as it does not precisely indicate as to whether the figure “02” indicates a period of 2 years or 2 months as the learned Dy. Commissioner of Police has failed to score off one of the two options between year and month in the operative part. He also concedes that if such an order is passed, it is bound to create confusion and would not be capable of implementation by the person aggrieved by it. However, he does not agree with the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, there is only one crime Number which is 175/12 which has been additionally taken into account while passing the impugned order and if that is excluded from the scrutiny of law, still, there is enough material available on record justifying the externment of the petitioner. He has further submitted that in the show cause notice, there is a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and also a mention about the necessity for his externment on the grounds that his criminal activities have resulted in causing of alarm, danger or harm to the persons and properties and also jeopardizing the security of the persons residing in the areas falling within and adjoining to Kherwadi police station. He submits that such a reference made in the show cause notice is sufficient to hold that the petitioner was informed of the satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against him in public out of fear. On these grounds, he has urged that appropriate order may be passed.

5. Once it is seen that admittedly, there is a mistake, albeit a grave one, in specifying the period for which the petitioner has been externed from the limits of the Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District, such an order has to be termed as absolutely illegal and perverse order not capable of being complied with by the petitioner. The said order is no order in the eyes o