(K.U. Chandiwal, J.)

1. Heard. Considering the nature of controversy raised by the petitioner, particularly challenge to the order of externment, we do not propose to permit intervention of applicant Narwade or getting him added as respondent no.2. Application for intervention dismissed.

2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard finally by consent.

3. The petitioner questions order of externment in externment proceeding No.5/2013 recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Ahmednagar, dated 20th Jan., 2014, and 27th Jan., 2014, confirmed in appeal by order dated 10th March, 2014.

4. Before we advert and ponder upon the issues, the broad out-line of submissions from Mr. Gaware needs to be scanned.

(a) The notice dt.14.10.2013 is vague, without particulars.

(b) The witnesses whose affidavits are tendered are not summoned.

(c) For the same set of offense, she was earlier externed for four months and she has been victimized by second notice dated 14.10.2013.

(d) The order is excessive.

(e) Stale prosecution is given new life.

(f) The cause for action or criminal prosecution has inherent public cause on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner asser