AbhayM. Thipsay, J.

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The learned APP waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard finally forthwith.

3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, externing the petitioner from Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years under the provisions of section 56(1)(a), 56(1) (b) and 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, (Act No.XXII of 1951) [Previous short title changed by the Maharashtra (Change of Short Titles of Certain Bombay Act) Act 2011, (Mah.Act No.24 of 2012] (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and confirmed in appeal under section 60 of the said Act, by the Secretary (Special) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra.

4. The petitioner is a resident of 427, Indira Nagar Zopad Patti, Pune. He was served with a notice dated 14 January 2013, as contemplated under section 59 of the said Act, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Pune City, Pune District and five adjoining districts for a period of two years under the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (bb) of sub-section (1) of section 56 of the said Act. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, appeared before the externing authority and also produced witnesses on his behalf. However, the externing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be externed under the provisions of the aforesaid clauses of section 56(1) and therefore, passed an externment order on 5 April 2013, as aforesaid.

5. A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner. It is contended, inter alia, that the show cause notice was vague, and therefore, bad-in-law. It is also contended that under which clauses of sub-section (1) of section 56, the petitioner was proposed to be externed, was not clear from the said show cause notice. It is also submitted that the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, were taken into consideration for arriving at a decision to extern the petitioner, and that the same was not permissible.

6. We have heard Mr.Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the respondents.

7. We have carefully gone through the notice under section 59, the order of externment as passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, and the order passed by the Secretary (Special) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, dismissing the appeal under section 60 of the said Act filed by the petitioner.

8. In the show cause notice, it was mentioned that it was proposed to extern the petitioner under the provisions of section 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b) and 56(1)(bb). It was mentioned that two persons, who were described as “A” and “B” had complained about the petitioner having threatened and extorted money from them, and that as they were afraid of the petitioner, they had not lodged any report regarding the said incidents to the police. In the show cause notice, the details of nine cases pending against the petitioner were given as follows:-

Sr. No Police Station C.R.No. Section Present Position

1 Swargate 6014/2011 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

2 Swargate 6015/2011 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

3 Swargate 52/2012 Indian Penal Code, Sec.324,504, Pending in Court

506, 343

4 Swargate 6002/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Pending in Court

5 Swargate 6012/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Pending in Court

6 Swargate 6013/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

7 Swargate 6017/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

8 Swargate 6018/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

9 Swargate 6030/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation

Similarly, in the externment order also, there is a reference to all the aforesaid cases.

9. In the view that we are taking, we do not find it necess