Important Point: An order of externment can also be passed against a person if that person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, or Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of IPC. But in addition to that Officer should be of the opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard.

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

3. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. Pra.Kra. 2016/Sapra/Pol-1/ Haddpar/CR-118, thereby partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner restricting the externment order to the area of Latur District, and also against the externment order dated 06.09.2016 passed by respondent no. 3, externing the petitioner from Latur and Osmanabad District.

4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds:

(i) The proposal submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and Enquiry Officer, Sub- Division, Ausa, wherein out of 4 offences mentioned on the date of filing such proposal, the petitioner was already acquitted from 3 offences.

(ii) The copies of the proposal submitted by the said authority and also other documents were not given to the petitioner as a result the petitioner could not properly defend himself.

(iii) Respondent no. 3 hurriedly passed the order of externment in absence of the advocate of the petitioner and thereby principles of natural justice have been violated.

(iv) Respondent nos.2 and 3 did not take into consideration that, out of 4 offences mentioned in the show cause notice, the petitioner was already acquitted from 3 offences.

(v) The order passed by respondent no. 3 was excessive inasmuch as the petitioner was externed from Latur and Osmanabad District, however, the alleged offences in the show cause notice were registered within the jurisdiction of the Latur District.

(vi) In order to satisfy requirement of the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, respondent no. 3 did not record in camera statements of the witnesses.

(vii) One of the reasons assigned in the order of externment that, the petitioner is creating law and order situation by spreading communal hatred is dehors the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. The notice was issued under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, however, the aforesaid reason assigned would attract ingredients of Section 56 1(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

(viii) Though the Appellate Authority modified the order passed by respondent no. 3 and confined to the Ausa Police Station, situate in Latur District nevertheless the legal aspects raised by the petitioner have not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority.

(ix) The reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice before respondent no. 3, was not considered by respondent no. 3 while passing the order of externment.

5. Therefore, relying upon the aforementioned grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, assisted by Advocate Mr. S.Y. Patil relying upon the reasons assigned in the impugned orders and also original record submits that, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be rejected.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. With their able assistance, we have also carefully perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, original record made available for perusal by the respondents and also the reported judgments cited across the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act which reads thus:

56. Removal of persons about to commit offence:

(1)………

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for be