S.S. Shinde, J.:

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.

3. This Criminal Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the Order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, against the petitioner in Ext. Case/S.R./No./21/2014 under Section 56 [1] [b] and Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner received notice from the office of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, informing him that, there is a proposal to extern the present petitioner from Jalgaon and adjacent Districts, and that he should remain present and give explanation as to why said proposal be not made, and for this purpose the said notice contained details of 5 crimes registered against the petitioner at MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon. Pursuant to the said notice, the present petitioner was present in the office of Sub Divisional Police Officer on 25.09.2014, and he submitted written explanation, wherein he mentioned that, out of five crimes mentioned, he has been acquitted in three and in other two charge sheet is not yet filed. He also annexed certain documents to display his credentials. Petitioner received show cause notice on 6th October, 2014. He has filed his written explanation on 28.10.2014 to the said show cause notice. On 19th January, 2015, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was pleased to extern the present petitioner from the Jalgaon District and also directed the petitioner to attend the Police Station once in a month. Hence this Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though it was brought to the notice of the respondent Authority that, the petitioner is acquitted from Crime No.114/2003, 116/2003 and 46/2008, said aspect has not been discussed by the respondent Authority while passing the externment order. It is further submitted that, the petitioner never indulged into communal activities as alleged in the notice and order of externment. It is submitted that, in crime numbers mentioned at serial No. 1, 2 and 3 of the notice and the order, the petitioner has been duly acquitted and in remaining two crimes i.e. Crime No. 44/2012 and 173/2014 charge sheets are yet to be filed. That when matters are under investigation, a person cannot be subject to be extern, on the basis of those crimes. Moreover when the petitioner is to be made to face the law, then for the same consideration, he cannot be subject to action of externment.

6. It is further submitted that, it is a settled law that, an order affecting civil rights of a person can be passed and be sustained only if based on relevant considerations. That in this case, there appears no nexus between the order of externment and the object sought to be achieved by such experiment. Hence, on this ground also the show cause notice and the externment order stands vitiated. It is further submitted that, based on the above grounds, it is apparent that, the rights of the petitioners have been infringed upon by way of curbing his civil rights on the basis of unwarranted considerations. Hence, the order externing the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition may be allowed.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent – State invited our attention to the reasons assigned in the impugned order, and also original record and submits that, respondent Authority has rightly externed petitioner from Jalgaon District since his activities were prejudicial to the public at large. It is submitted that, the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – S