Anuja Prabhu Dessai, J.

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

2. The petitioners herein have challenged the externment orders passed by the Deputy Police Commissioners under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act and confirmation thereof by the statutory authorities.

3. The externment order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1813 of 2013 was preceded with notice dated 26.3.2012 issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Gr. Bombay, New Mumbai and Thane District. The petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and filed his reply and also examined witnesses to refute the allegations leveled against him. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order externing the petitioner from the area of Gr. Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for a period of two years.

4. The petitioner filed Externment Appeal No. 287 of 2012 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dated 5.9.2012, which appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.4.2013. Hence the present petition.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that he was served with incomplete copy of notice. He further stated that the reply filed by him has not been considered and that the order has been passed without going into the merits of the matter and without considering the provisions of law. He has further stated that he was sought to be externed in the year 2012-2013 on the basis of the crimes registered in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner has further stated that though the allegations alleged against him relate to the city of Bombay, the externment order covers 23 districts and hence the order is excessive and is liable to be quashed.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Police had served upon the petitioner in Criminal writ petition No. 529/2014 an externment order dated 26.9.2013, which was preceded with notice dated 20th August, 2013 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Mumabi, Mumbai Suburbs Thane and Raigad. Upon considering the material on record and the reply filed by the petitioner, the Externing Authority externed the Petitioner from Mumbai and Mumbai Suburbs for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the order in appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21st January, 2014.

7. The petitioner claims that he is a respectable citizen engaged in the business of service of providing internet and cable network and is also engaged in social and political activities. The petitioner has stated that his rivals have involved him in several criminal cases. The petitioner has stated that he was issued a notice to show cause why he should not be externed from the limits of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburbs, Thane and Raigad District. The said notice was based on old and stale cases and on wrong information. The petitioner has stated that despite his reply, the externing authority passed a cryptic order which is based on material which is not disclosed in the show cause notice. The petitioner has stated that the externment order is excessive. The petitioner has stated that there is no subjective satisfaction of the fact that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension of safety of their person or property. The petitioner has stated that he has been externed at the behest of his rivals while the main co-accused has been set free. The petitioner has stated that the externment order as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority reflects non application of mind and deserves to be quashed.

8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Chitnis, appearing for the has argued that in view of Article 19 (d) and (e) it is the fundamental right of ev