C.V. Bhadang, J.

1. As the regular Bench, to which this petition was assigned is unable to take up this petition, as per the general standing order in this regard this petition is listed before this Bench.

2. Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for the respondent-State. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29th December 2015 passed by the respondent No.1 thereby confirming the order dated 9th October 2015 passed by the leaned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ("said Act" for short) by which the petitioner has been externed from Kolhapur district for a period of six months.

4. It appears that the petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 9th October 2015 before this Court in WP No. 4345/2015 which was disposed of, on 21st November 2015 after noticing that the petitioner had also challenged the said order in an appeal under section 60 of the said Act. In that view of the matter this Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. It further appears that subsequently the appellate authority by an order dated 29th December 2015 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner thereby confirming the impugned order of externment. That is how the petitioner is before this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the show-cause notice dated 15th July 2015 mentions that a prior opportunity was given, it is contended that there was no such prior notice issued to the petitioner at any point of time. It is submitted that the show-cause notice dated 15th July 2015 on the basis of which the impugned order is passed does not set out any particulars as to the offences on the basis of which the proposed action is initiated. It is submitted that, thus, the impugned order, which for the first time sets out three crimes viz., Crime Nos. 38/2010; 34/2011 and 97/2013 cannot be sustained.

7. The learned APP has supported the impugned order on the ground that there is sufficient material for the competent authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction contemplated under section 56(1)(a) of the said Act.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the show-cause notice dated 15th July 2015 is silent as to the offences/crimes, on the basis of which action was initiated. The said show-cause notice makes a reference to the earlier show cause notice on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded satisfaction as envisaged. We find that there is no such prior show-cause notice which is forthcoming on record. If that be so, clearly the impugned order, which is based on the aforesaid three offences/crimes, would stand vitiated on account of absence of said offences or particulars thereof being put to the petitioner and he having been afforded opportunity to explain the same. That apart, we also find that last of such offences/crimes alleged against the petitioner is of the year 2013 being Crime No. 97/2013 while the impugned action is initiated in July 2015. In our considered view, the impugned action would be bad also on account of absence of any live link between such offences and the impugned action. We find that the appellate authority has noticed that, in all the three offences the learned Session Judge had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The appellate authority has also noticed that after the year 2013, no offence has been registered against the petitioner. The appellate authority has, however, failed to address itself on the effect of those circumstances and, particularly, the absence of any live link between the offences and the impugned action. We, therefore, find that this petition has to succeed. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

Order

(a) The Rule is