JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of his externment dated 16.03.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-2 Amaravati (City) as well as the order passed by the respondent No. 1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, dated 25.08.2022, confirming the order of the externment in appeal.

3. The respondent No. 2, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-Section (1), clauses (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1951” for short), ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Amravati City and Amravati District for a period of two years. In the inquiry conducted before passing the order of externment, the respondent No. 2 relied upon four crimes and one chapter proceeding initiated under Section 110 (e) (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati. Out of four crimes, 2 registered at Frezarpura Police Station and two registered at Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati City. The details of the crimes are as under:

PREVENTIVE ACTION:

4. In addition to the above crimes, the respondent No. 2 relied upon confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B. Based on the crimes as above and confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent No. 2 formed an opinion and satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were in violation of the provisions of law and fully covered under the provisions of Section 56 (1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951 for passing the order of externment.

5. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal against the order of his externment dated 16.03.2022 before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 found that the subjective satisfaction to order the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material considered by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1, however, observed in his order dated 25.08.2022 that considering the time gap between the offence at Serial No. 1 and Serial No. 2, there was no live link between the offences committed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 ultimately rejected the appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court against both the orders.

6. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on more than one grounds. It is stated that the basic requirements of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act 1951 have not been prima-facie satisfied. The respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration the crime No. 1, in which, the petitioner was already acquitted for forming the subjective satisfaction. This clearly indicates the non-application of mind by the respondent No. 2. The stale crimes have been relied upon to form the subjective satisfaction. The material relied upon by no stretch of imagination could be said to be an objective material. The live link between the crimes as well as