The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of concrete prima facie material under Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, to justify externment.

(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 asserts to be a social worker and also advocates that in the light of the duties assigned to her, it was her bounden obligation to agitate before authorities to address the grievance of the society at large. The agitation was not liked by certain political groups who are in power and hence, the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951, are mischievously used against her.

6. We have gone through earlier orders and also the notice dt.14.10.2013. We do not subscribe to the contentions of Mr. Gaware that the notice is vague or stale instances are recked up.. Annexures to the notice, in unequivocal terms, disclose the offence, the vigour created by such offenses and the threat in the mind of the people at large.

7. Learned Counsel relied to the following judgments:

(1) 1986(1) Bom.CR 144 - (Ayub Yusuf Mansuri vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate),

(2) 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240 -(Yeshwant Damodar Patil vs Hemant Karkar, Dy.Commissioner of Police and another),

(3) 1997 (Supplement) Bom.C.R. 788 -(Namdeo Laxman Charde vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katol & anr) of learned Single Judge and

(4) 2010 (3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 286 - (Sandip Devidas Thorat Vs. Principal Secretary) of learned Single Judge, and

(5) 2013(10) LJSoft.15 - (Rameshkumar @ Ramu Singh s/o Shriram Singh Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra and anr).

There should not be contest on legal proposition enunciated in each of the afore referred case; either by the Division Bench or by the learned Single Judge, however, each of the case projects its particular facts and in the light of those facts, the observations are flashed by the learned Judges. They will not tend to be a declaration of law or precedent.

8. Straightway reverting to the latter judgment of 2013 (1) LJSOFT 15, the Division Bench has recorded in paragraph no.7 that stale offenses of 1990, 1993, 2004 were considered by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Even he had considered extraneous material for passing impugned order. The externment of said petitioner from six districts was without any reason inasmuch, the crimes against the said petitioner were registered with Police Stations only at Warora tehsil.

9. In another case, the authorities failed to distinguish between effect of Section 56(1)(a) and Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the Division Bench also recorded, in Thane district, identical orders, and with same set of legal issues, were routinely passed against persons, curtailing their liberties, and externment orders were quashed and set aside.

10. If parameters of afore referred judgments are seen, and the facts projected in the instant case are put in juxtaposition, it emerges that those cases, or the observations therein, will not be fitting to the bracket of the present scenario.

11. Mr. Gaware has stated, right of l