Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amin Solkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kejriwal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the order of externment dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division, Thane, externing him from the limits of Thane, Pune, Nashik, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of one year. Although the petitioner has not preferred an appeal against the said order of externment, we have entertained this petition only in view of the fact that the impugned order of externment dated 15th April, 2013 was informed to the petitioner at his residence as late as 27th September, 2013 and immediately thereafter in October, this petition has been filed and is pending since then. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, as an exception, we have entertained this petition, although an alternate efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner by way of an appeal.

4. At the outset, we may note that the petitioner in the year 2010 was externed from the limits of Thane, Brihan Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Raigad Districts by an order dated 18th February, 2010 for a period of two years by the Externing Authority. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of a petition, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 853/2010. This Court vide order dated 21st October, 2010 was pleased to quash and set-aside the said order of externment on the ground that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and in the order of externment, there was no material to show that on account of fear, the witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence in public, as against the proposed externee.

5. Coming back to the facts on which the present petition is filed, it is stated by the petitioner, that he learnt under the Right to Information Act, that the respondent No.3 had sent a proposal to the respondent No.2 for externing him along with his report dated 31st December, 2011. It is stated that in the said report, besides relying on the cases which were grounds set out in the earlier externment order, there was a reference to the in-camera statements. It is stated that after considering the said proposal based on the report dated 31st December, 2011, the respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 20th March, 2012 informing the petitioner about reconsideration of the earlier externment proceedings against him. According to the petitioner, he was again served with a show-cause notice dated 28th May, 2012, which was issued by respondent No.2, wherein, the very same cases were listed, on the basis of which the earlier order of externment was passed and which came to be quashed by this Court vide order dated 21st October, 2010. The petitioner by the said show-cause notice was informed, that it was proposed to extern him from the limits of Thane, Brihan Mumbai, Raigad, Nashik and Ahmednagar for a period of two years under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act').

6. The petitioner has stated that he appeared before the respondent on 8th June, 2012 and participated in the inquiry proceedings. Petitioner states that on 27th September, 2013, some police officials came to his residence and informed him that an order dated 15th April, 2013 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. the Externing Authority, externing the petitioner from the limits of Thane, Pune, Nashik, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of one year under Section 57 of the said Act.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Solkar contended that the in-camera statements recorded are bereft of details with regard to time, month, year, etc., thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him in the show-cause notice. He also contended that the order of ext