The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for procedural regularities and the recording of incamera statements of witnesses in externment proceedings, as well as the need for the concerned officer to be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public due to apprehension for their safety.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The background facts for filing the present Petition as disclosed in the memo of the Petition, in brief, are as under:

It is the case of the Petitioner that on 19th September, 2016 the Petitioner he received the showcause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act of 1951"). In all 4 offences alleged to have been registered against the Petitioner and that has been made basis for proposed externment. It is submitted that the Petitioner filed reply, and submitted that out of four offences, he has been acquitted in one offence i.e. offence at Sr. No.3 and offence at Sr. No.4 is only a chapter case. On 30th November, 2016 Respondent No.3 passed an order thereby externing the Petitioner from Ahmednagar District for two years. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order passed by Respondent No.3, the Petitioner filed appeal before Respondent No.4 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. By order dated 28th April, 2017 Respondent No.4, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by Respondent No.3 and externed the Petitioner only from Rahuri Taluka instead of Ahmednagar District. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondents failed to consider that out of the four crimes mentioned in the notice, the Petitioner was acquitted in one crime while another crime is merely a preventive action and is not a registered crime, and therefore the order externing the Petitioner from Rahuri Taluka needs to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the notice issued to the Petitioner under Section 59 of the Act of 1951, not even in brief gives the circumstance for which he is proposed to be externed and only four crimes registered against the Petitioner at Rahuri police station are mentioned. It is submitted that despite being apprised by the Petitioner that from the offence mentioned at sr. No.3 of the notice already he has been acquitted, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur has gone ahead and considered the same for the purpose of externing the Petitioner from Ahmednagar District, which by itself is excessive. It is submitted that nowhere on record there is any allegation or material to show that the Petitioner has caused any hindrance in the course of investigation. There is no allegation as to how and whether the Petitioner has tried to influence or threaten any witnesses, at any point of time thereby causing discord between society and law.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that neither the notice nor the order narrate the circumstances under which the Petitioner is harmful for the health and texture of society, and how witnesses are under terror and are not coming forward to depose against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that, it is nowhere brought on record, as to when and how the witnesses were examined, and what instances such witnesses have stated regarding the incidents caused by the Petitioner. There are no incamera statements. It is submitted that one crime mentioned against the Petitioner is of the year 2010, while the other two crimes are of the year 2015, and therefore there appears to be no consistency or continuance in the criminal conduct of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is already before the Court of law in remaining two crimes and peacefully attending all the dates, wherein he is chargesheeted just before the initiation of externment proceedings. It is submitted that it is settled law that very fundamental right of the Petitioner of free movement is infringed upon by way of curving his civil right on the basis of unwarranted consideration. It is submitted that in the show cause notice there is no reference that incamera statements of the witnesses were recorded. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the order passed by Respondent No.4 i