B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. Petition challenges the order dated 12/9/2017 vide which the Petitioner has been externed from Yavatmal District and Tahsils of Wardha District, Taluka Washim, Karanja, Manora, Mangrulpir, Malegaon, District Washim and Amravati, Chandur Railway, Dhamangaon Railway, Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District Amravati, Taluka Chandrapur, Bhadravati, Varora, Korpana, District Chandrapur.

3. Petition deserves to be allowed on a very short ground. Perusal of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, would reveal that, when jurisdiction is sought to be exercised under Section 56(1)(b), it is necessary that, the authority exercising its jurisdiction should arrive at subjective satisfaction that a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.

4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that, there is not even a whisper in the impugned order that the authority has come to a subjective satisfaction that, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner in public. It could thus be seen that, the very basic ingredient on which the jurisdiction can be exercised under Section 56(1)(b) of the said Act is lacking in the present matter.

5. Petition also deserves to be allowed on the other ground. Though the impugned order would reveal that, all the activities of the Petitioner are restricted only within the jurisdiction of Wadgaon Road Police Station, he has been externed not only from the entire Yavatmal District but also from various Talukas of four Districts. There is not even a mention as to why the Petitioner's exterment from such large areas has been found to be necessary. This Court in catena of cases had held that, when externment is found to be from excessive areas, the same can also be a relevant ground for quashing the impugned order. Only reasoning given is that, if the Petitioner is not externed from adjoining areas, it will be easy for him to enter the Wadgaon area.

6. It would further reveal that, though the impugned order refers to confidential statements of local citizens, there is not even a whisper with regard to the same in the impugned order.

7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).