The main legal point established is that the selective approach in externment orders and externment beyond jurisdiction require strict adherence to the legal provisions and recording of reasons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of externment passed by the externment authority and confirmed by the appellate authority.

3. Heard Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. G. Borade, APP for the respondents/State.

4. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that the externment proceedings was initiated against in all six persons including these two petitioners contending that petitioner No.1 is the chief of the gang and remaining five are the members of the gang. He submitted that while passing the externment order dated 23rd March, 2022, the competent authority has dropped the proceedings against four members of the gang and passed the order of externment against petitioner No.1 being chief of the gang and petitioner No.2 being member of the gang. He vehemently submitted that this selective approach of the competent authority is not permissible under law. He further invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that alleged criminal activities of the petitioners and their associates are restricted to Parbhani district, according to the case of the police machinery. However, the petitioners came to be externed from adjoining two talukas from Beed district. The petitioners have been externed from Parli-Vaijnath and Majalgaon, which are adjoining taluka places without assigning any reason for using such excessive power for externment. He submitted that in absence of recording any reasons to that effect, the order is bad in law.

5. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply and in the show-cause-notice, in all seven crimes have been shown against these petitioners. Out of them, the petitioners came to be acquitted from four crimes and in respect of three crimes, the cases are pending before the criminal Court. He submitted that there is no live link to connect these petitioners. He submitted that there was no sufficient material available with the externing authority to pass the impugned order. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects and mechanically dismissed the appeal. He submitted that both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed his reliance in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.650 of 2021 (Coram: M. S. Sonak and Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.) dated 28th October, 2021. By taking help of the above said citation, Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts of the case in hand and the facts of the cited case are practically identical and in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal (supra), the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside in view of selective approach while passing the impugned orders.

7. Per contra, Mr. Borade, learned APP for the State/respondents submitted that the order passed by the externment authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, are valid in the eye of law. Those have been passed according to the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. By taking into account the criminal record of the petitioners being chief of the gang and member of the gang, the competent authority has passed the order of externment. There is no legal defect. The principles of natural justice have been followed. He submitted that the authority is empowered to pass the externment order beyond the particular jurisdiction in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sumit s/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Anr., reported in, 2019 ALL MR (Cri