Z.A. HAQ, J. :- None for the petitioner. Heard Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondents. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Murtizapur on 4th September, 2012 externing the petitioner from Akola district for the period of one year. This Court by the order dated 3rd December, 2012 had granted adinterim stay to the impugned order which continues till today. .

3. Shri Ghodeswar, the learned APP has submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and in consonance with the facts of the case. The learned APP has submitted that the authority has taken into consideration the material on record and has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

4. With the assistance of Shri Ghodeswar, the learned APP for respondents 1 and 2, we have examined the record. The authority has taken into consideration the prosecutions of 2008 and 2009 which in our view should not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of passing the externment order as they are stale prosecutions and have no nexus with the objects to be achieved for passing an externment order. Furthermore, the authority has taken into consideration the offences registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act. It is the settled law that the offences registered under the said Act cannot be taken into consideration while passing the order of externment. In our view the authority has taken into consideration the material which is not relevant and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.

5. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

In the facts of the case parties to bear their own costs.

Petition allowed.