V.L. ACHLIYA, J. :- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of Externment dated 10/04/2013 passed by the Dy.Commissioner of Police, Matunga Division, Zone-IV, Mumbai i.e. respondent No.2 and order dated 17/07/2013 passed in appeal by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra i.e. respondent No.3.

3. In brief, facts leading to filing of petition are as under:

On 31/01/2013 a notice u/s. 59 of the Bombay Police Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from local limits of Mumbai City, suburb city of Mumbai and District Thane and Raigarh for the period of two years. Show cause notice mention the details of criminal cases registered against the petitioner as well as his continuing unlawful activities which has prompted the authority to initiate proceeding of Externment. It has been specifically mentioned in show cause notice that one C.R.No.226 of 2012 for offence u/s.143, 144, 145, 147, 148 149, 307, 326, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC has been registered against him on 03/10/2012 with Police Station, Antop Hill in respect of which criminal case is pending before the Court. Beside case registered vide C.R.No.226 of 2012, two in-camera statements of witnesses referred in notice on the basis of which the proposed action for his Externment for the period of two years from city of Mumbai, suburb Mumbai and District of Thane and Raigarh was initiated. The petitioner was granted ample opportunity to defend the proceedings. The case was heard on 05/02/2013, 08/02/2013, 13/02/2013, 16/02/2013, 21/02/2013, 27/02/2013, 07/03/2013 and 14/03/2013. After giving full opportunity of hearing Inquiry Officer i.e. Assistant Commission of Police submitted proposal to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No.4, Mumbai for taking action u/s. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. On due consideration of proposal and satisfaction that the petitioner needs to be externed for the period of two years from the aforesaid area as a preventive measure, the respondent has passed the order on 10/04/2013 u/s. 56 (1) (a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No.4, the petitioner has preferred appeal u/s.60 of the Bombay Police Act before the State Government. The appellate authority after giving due opportunity of hearing rejected the appeal by order dated 17/07/2013. The appellant authority has upheld the order of Externment passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No.4. Being aggrieved by said orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. We have perused the record and thoroughly considered the show cause notice dated 31/01/2013, the order passed by the externing authority as well as appellate authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the show cause notice dated 31/01/2013 and consequential order dated 10/04/2013 passed by respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is nothing but reproduction of contents of show cause notice dated 31/01/2013, which itself sufficient to infer that the externing authority did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order. It is further contended that though the petitioner has pointed out to authority that out of seven cases referred in show cause notice, he was acquitted in three cases and in remaining three cases his name is not mentioned in the FIR, still the externing authority as well as appellate authority ignored the contentions of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that issuance of notice referring the cases in which the petitioner was acquitted itself show that as how casually and mechanically the orders have been passed in the proceedings. It is further contended that though