G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Saste, Learned APP, waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith, and petition taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns (i) an Externment Order dated 30th March 2013 No. 38/C/43/2013 issued by the Respondent No. 2 externing the Petitioner from the limits of Brihan Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane for the period of one year; and (ii) an Appellate Order dated 17th June, 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 confirming the Externment Order.

3. On 11th January, 2013 the Petitioner was served with the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pydhonie Division, Mumbai, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause why he should not be externed from the limits of Brihan Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane for a period of two years. The Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned Externment Order on 30th March, 2013. The Petitioner carried the matter in Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by the Respondent No. 1 on 17th June, 2013.

4. The Externment order is issued under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The basis of the Externment Order is the conviction of the Petitioner in C.R. No. 198 of 2008 registered under Sections 307, 326, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The Externment Order also relies on two further criminal complaints against the Petitioner, being C.R. No. 294 of 2011 and C.R. No. 207 of 2012, both registered with the Pydhonie Police Station. In both those criminal complaints, the complainant was a relative of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was acquitted in both cases. Therefore, the only basis for the Externment Order is the conviction in the Criminal Case of 2008.

5. We have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Saste, learned APP, and we have, with their assistance, carefully considered the Petition and the various documents and the annexures thereto, as also the Affidavit in Reply.

6. In our view, Mr. Shaikh is justified in his contention that the Externment Order and the Appellate Order cannot be sustained. The externment order is passed under Section 57 (a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. That section has two requirements: first, a conviction of the proposed externee under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and second, a recorded satisfaction that the externing authority “has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted”. Both requirements are essential; it is not enough that only one is met. The words “reason to believe” mean that there must exist some cogent material, capable of being objectively tested, on which the authority has arrived at his subjective satisfaction. Further, that satisfaction must be as to the likelihood of the person committing a similar offence. Of necessity, this means that there must be some live link of temporal proximity — not necessarily immediacy — between the conviction and the justification for externment.

7. In the present instance, the Petitioner was convicted in 2009 in a criminal case registered in 2008. This cannot possibly form the basis of a proposed Externment Order in 2013. There is nothing to show that there is any imminent likelihood of his committing a similar offence. The other two cases mentioned in the show cause notice and Externment Order are of 2011 and 2012. Both resulted in Petitioner’s acquittal. They cannot form the basis of any satisfaction of the Petitioner being likely to commit a similar offence to that for which he was convicted in 2009. The Appellate Authority, unfortunately, gives this vital legal aspect only the most cursory attention. He says the later cases have been mentioned “merely to refl