Important Point - There is no reference about recording the in-camera statements of witnesses by the respondent No. 3 in the show cause notice.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. This petition is filed with the following substantive prayer:-

"(C) By issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Externment Appeal No. 58/2016 thereby confirming and modifying the order dated 29.10.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 in Externment proposal No. 16/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the contents of the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2 and submits that in the said show cause notice, there is no whisper about the recording of any in-camera statements of the witnesses by the respondent No. 3 so as to arrive at subjective satisfaction that due to apprehension or fear in the minds of the witnesses, they are not coming forward in public to depose against the petitioner. He submits that on the said ground alone, the entire proceeding initiated by respondent No. 3 stands vitiated, inasmuch as, the requirement of Provisions of Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, contemplates that the competent authority who has initiated the externment proceedings shall make mention/reference about any in-camera statements recorded and gist of the version stated by those witnesses in the show cause notice. It is submitted that in the first place, neither there is reference of recording of in-camera statements of the witnesses in the show cause notice and secondly, nor there is detailed reference or the gist of allegations stated by the said witnesses in the order passed by the respondent No. 3. In support of the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the matter of Yashwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and Another, 1989 Mh. L.J. 1111. He specifically invites our attention to para nos. 3 and 11 of the said judgment and submits that the ratio laid down in the said judgment on interpretation of Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act is applicable in the present facts of the case, and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

3. On the learned APP, relying upon the original record and also the notice issued by the SDPO, Srirampur and submits that there was a reference in the said notice about the recording of in-camera statements of the witnesses. He submits that even in the order passed by the respondent No. 3, there is reference to the fact that in-camera statements of witnesses have been recorded by respondent No. 3. He also invites our attention to the reasons assigned by the respondent authority while passing the externment order and restraining the petitioner initially from six districts and subsequently restricting the externment by the appellate authority to the extent of two talukas i.e. Rahata and Shrirampur in Ahmednagar District. Therefore, he submits that the petition is devoid of any merits and same may be rejected.

4. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, learned APP and with their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, the reasons assigned by the respondent No. 3, while passing the impugned order of externment and also reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority. The original record of the case was also made available for our perusal.

5. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the show cause notice which was issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, there is no mention/reference of in-camera statement of witnesses recorded by the respondent No. 3. The contention of the learned APP appearing for the State that in the notice issued by the SDPO, Shrirampur, there is reference to such in-camera statements, is of no use, since the mandate of