B.R. Gavai, J.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner approached this Court by challenging the impugned order dated 19-10-2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, thereby externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the limits of Amravati District and Amravati Rural District.

3. Heard Shri H.M. Sakhare, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Nayak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that, the petition be allowed on the ground that the externing Authority while passing the impugned order has taken into consideration the material which is not the part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that, the externing Authority has taken into consideration the crimes which are mentioned in the impugned order at serial Nos.3 and 4. However, on perusal of the show-cause notice, it reveals that, the offences which are mentioned in the impugned order are not shown in it and as such the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, in as much as, the Authority has taken into consideration the material which is not the part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Further it is revealed that, in addition to three crimes mentioned in the show-cause notice, the petitioner is acquitted in two crimes, about which the petitioner has specifically mentioned in his written reply. But, there is no reference about these two offences in the impugned order. In view of the matter, the impugned order also suffers from non application of mind.

6. In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) of this criminal writ petition. No order as to the costs.

Petition allowed.