S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with consent of the parties.

2. At the outset, we constrained to observe that, in spite of sufficient time granted to the respondents, the original record pertains to the case of the petitioner in relation to the externment was not made available for perusal, we express displeasure and direct respondent No. 1, to cause enquiry of respondents Nos. 2 and submit report to this Court within two months from today.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds; firstly, the alleged activities of the petitioner are confined to the Newasa town and even the offences are registered at Newasa Police Station, and therefore, there was no reason for respondent No. 2 to extern the petitioner from the entire Ahmednagar District. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat in the case of Sanket Balkurshna Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2013 All MR (Cri.) 3834 and in particular para 10 thereof.

4. Secondly, he submits that the mandate of the provisions of Section 156 (1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act is