The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for relevant material and reasonableness in passing an externment order under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951, and the need to demonstrate shared participation and continuous criminal conduct by the gang members to justify such an order.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. This petition, filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to order of externment dated 16th February, 2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, ahmednagar respondent No. 2, externing the petitioner from ahmednagar district for a period of eighteen months under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951 (hereafter 'the said act' for short) which is confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik respondent No. 3 in Externment appeal No. 22 of 2021 vide order dated 26th July, 2021.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on various grounds. He submits that there is no material on record to show that the five crimes registered against the petitioner are committed by the petitioner as a member of a gang or body of persons and those offences are committed by the gang members in concert. He submits that though nine offences are registered against four gang members, the petitioner is shown to be involved in five offences. all the gang members are not accused in all the offences. Stale offences of the year 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019 are taken into consideration while passing the impugned externment order. The petitioner is already acquitted in two crimes and this fact is ignored by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order. The petitioner is on bail in all the other offences registered against him and conviction is not recorded in any of the offence. The in camera statements relied on by the authority against the petitioner are vague. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a member of the gang and the activities of the gang were dangerous to the health and texture of the society.

4. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner relied in 'Deepak Laxman Dongre V/s State of Maharashtra' LaWS (SC)-202201-87; 'Rajwardhan Babaso Patil V/s Vijaysinha Jadhav and another' 2015 aLL MR (Cri) 2936 and an unreported judgment of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2012 (Praful Bhausaheb Yadav V/s K. K. Pathak).

5. Per contra, learned additional Public Prosecutor strenuously argued that the petitioner, with the gang leader and other members of the gang, is involved in serious crimes like offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 393, 395, 399 of the Indian Penal Code. Supporting the impugned order, he submits that respondent No. 2 has recorded subjective satisfaction while passing the impugned order. Respondent No.2 has rightly relied on two in camera statements of the witnesses. according to him, there is a live link between the commission of offence by the petitioner, the gang leader Manoj and the externment order. He submits that the impugned order is legal and rational and the same is preventive order for deterring the gang members from committing offences.

By relying in 'State of NCT of Delhi V/s Sanjeev @ Bittoo' 2005 (5) SCC 181, he submits that unless it is shown that powers are manifestly arbitrarily exercised, the same cannot be interfered with. The scope of judicial review of the administrative order is limited. His further submission is that there exists material on the basis of which the impugned externment order is passed. He, therefore, submits that there is no substance in the petition and the same may be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned additional Public Prosecutor at length.

Perused the record made available by the learned additional Public Prosecutor.

7. as per section 55 of the said act, whenever it appears to the competent authority that the movement or encampment of any gang member or body of persons in the area under his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion th