B.R. GAVAI, J. :- Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18/10/2012 issued by respondent no.2, thereby externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area of Police Commissionerate, Amravati City and Amravati Rural area.

3. We have perused the material available on record. We find that the impugned order suffers on the following two grounds:

(i) though the petitioner has been acquitted in the crimes at serial nos.1 and 2 in the impugned order and in reply to the show cause notice, he had also submitted judgments of acquittal, the same have not been taken into consideration and the said two crimes have been shown to be pending in the impugned order. It can thus be seen that the impugned order suffers on account of consideration of irrelevant and extraneous material and also depicts non-application of mind.

(ii) The other ground is that in the impugned order, the respondent Authority has relied on two in-camera statements. Perusal of the show cause notice reveals that there is no mention regarding the same in it. By now it is a settled law that if any material is taken into consideration, of which notice is not given to the person against whom action is proposed, the same would be violative of principles of natural justice.

4. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order dated 18/10/2012 passed by the respondent no.2 is not sustainable in law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) of the criminal writ petition. No order as to costs.

Petition allowed.