Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati City, Amravati dated 23.6.2016 externing the petitioner from Amravati City and Amravati Rural area for a period of two years.

3. Mr. J.B. Kasat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside, as in the notice served on the petitioner under section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has not mentioned about the in-camera statements of the two witnesses. It is submitted that though a passing reference is made in the notice under section 59 that the in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded by giving assurance to them in regard to the nondisclosure of their identity, what was said by these witnesses is not mentioned in the show cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner could not effectively give the reply to the show cause notice in the absence of any material about the in-camera st