The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Externing Authority to apply due consideration to relevant aspects, material, and grievances before passing an order of externment.

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The challenge in the present criminal writ petition is to order of externment, passed by respondent No. 3, dated 11.4.2016 by which the petitioner has been externed from the limits of the Commissionerate at Nagpur for a period of one year. This order has been passed under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, "the said Act").

3. Show cause notice dated 5.1.2016 was issued to the petitioner in which reference was made to five offences that were stated to have been registered against him at Ambazari Police Station. Three of the offences pertain to the year 2001-02, one offence pertains to the year 2014 and the last offence pertains to the year 2015. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice on 14.1.2016. By the impugned order, respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the order of externment, as stated herein above.

4. Learned counsel Shri A.K. Waghmare for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order indicated non-application of mind on the part of the Externing Authority. He submitted that out of the five offences that were referred to in the show cause notice, the petitioner had been acquitted in two of the offences. Though it was stated in the order of externment that the aforesaid offences had been excluded from consideration by the Externing Authority, it has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had been indulging in such activities since the year 2001 onwards. It was then submitted that though in the show cause notice there is no reference to recording of secret statements, the reference to secret statements finds place in the impugned order. Further in the impugned order it has been vaguely stated that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to make any complaint. He then submitted that the last offence relating to the year 2015 pertains to a petty offence in which no charge-sheet has been filed even till date. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A. Thakre for the respondents/State relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. He submitted that acquittal of the petitioner from two of the offences had been taken into consideration by the Externing Authority while passing the impugned order. He submitted that on the basis of various statements recorded, the Externing Authority had reached to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were dangerous in nature and a case for externment under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) of the said Act had been made out. After due verification of these statements, the satisfaction had been reached by the Externing Authority and the impugned order came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel Shri C.P. Chandurkar for the intervenors submitted that by order dated 13.7.2016, the applicants therein were permitted to address the Court before passing of final orders. He submitted that all six applicants had made various complaints as regards the dangerous activities of the petitioner before the Police Authorities. Their statements had been duly recorded and on that count, the order of externment, as passed, was liable to be sustained.

7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the documents on record. We have also given due consideration to their respective submissions.

8. Perusal of show cause notice dated 5.1.2016 indicates reference being made to two offences of the years 2001 and 2002. The petitioner in his reply dated 14.1.2016 stated that he had been acquitted in the said two cases. The order passed by the learned Magistrate, acquitting the petitioner in both these offences indicates that the petitioner stands acquitted in Regular Criminal Case No. 65 of 2001 on 25.8.2005 and in Summary Criminal Case No. 1220 of 2002 on 20.2.2008. It is, therefore clear that in two offences that wer