JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his externment dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Amravati City, Amravati as well as the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by respondent no.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereby the respondent no.1 confirmed the order of externment in appeal.

4. The respondent no.2, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-section (1), clauses (a)&(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 District for a period of two years. In order to arrive at subjective satisfaction to warrant the order of externment against the petitioner, the respondent no.2 relied upon five crimes registered against the petitioner at Nagpuri Gate and Badnera police station, Amravati. The details of the crimes are as under :

5. Besides above crimes, the respondent no.2 placed heavy reliance upon the confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. On the basis of the crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent no.2 recorded a satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951 and as such warranting his externment.

6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of his externment dated 12.07.2021 before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. His appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

7. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Perused the record and proceedings.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that out the five crimes the crimes at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are for the offences under the Arms Act and under the Act of 1951. Learned Advocate submitted that these crimes could not have been considered for recording the subjective satisfaction. Learned Advocate submitted that there was no live link between the three remaining crimes inter se and the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 12.07.2021. Learned Advocate further submitted that in all the crimes the petitioner was released on bail. The bail orders were not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2. Similarly, there is no positive statement in the notice as well as in the order of externment that the petitioner had committed the breach of the conditions of the bail. As far as the statements of the two confidential witnesses are concerned, the learned Advocate submitted that the substance of these two statements of the confidential witnesses was neither stated in the notice dated 28.06.2021 nor in the order of externment dated 12.07.2021. Learned Advocate further submitted that the notice and the order are conspicuously silent about the due verification of these statements by the respondent no.2. Learned Ad