AnujaPrabhu Dessai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner herein has challenged the externment order No.37 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner Zone IV, Pune City under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”.

3. The externment order was preceded with notice dated 13.8.2013 issued by the Inquiry Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and filed his reply. The inquiry Officer forwarded the report to the Externing Authority for further action. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 externing the petitioner from Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years.

4. The petitioner filed Externment Appeal No. 156 of 2013 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dated 4.10.2013, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.2.2014. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition challenging the legal and constitutional validity of the impugned order.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi has argued that the externment order stands vitiated for non compliance of provisions under Section 59 of the Act. He has submitted that the Externing Authority has not recorded satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to depose against the petitioner in public due to fear but has recorded that the people are not willing to depose against the petitioner, which learned Advocate Mr. Tiwari contends that the satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority is not the requirement of Section 59.

6. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari has further submitted that the dates on which the in-camera statements were recorded is not mentioned in the notice. The statements relied upon by the Asst. Commissioner are vague and such statements could not have been relied upon. He contents that the Appellate Authority has not given any findings on these grounds though raised and the order of the Appellate Authority reflects total non application of mind. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Imtiyaz Afzal Hussain Shaikh V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Police, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 443, and Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 630.

7. Learned APP Ms. Kantharia has argued that the petitioner is involved in committing several serious crimes and that he had created terror in the minds of the witnesses, due to which they were not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. She has argued that the Externing Authority has recorded satisfaction that the members of the public/people are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner in public, which is effective compliance of Section 59 of the Act. Learned APP has submitted that there was sufficient material to extern the petitioner under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, and that the subjective satisfaction of the Authority cannot be interfered with.

8. We have perused the material placed before us and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner and the learned APP Mrs Kantharia for the State.

9. Section 56(1)(a)(b), authorizes the Externing Authority to extern any person involved in committing any one of the following activities:

a) That the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property.

b) That there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of offence involving force or violence;

Or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, X