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 05.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati as well as the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, whereby the respondent No.2 confirmed the order of externment in appeal.

4. The respondent No.3, 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.3 relied upon three crimes registered against the petitioner at Gadge Nagar police station, Amravati. The details of the crimes are as under :

PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

5. In addition to the above crimes, the respondent No.3 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.3 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 05.04.2022 before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 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. S. B. Gandhe, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this case the crimes at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 could not have been taken into consideration, inasmuch as the same crimes, on the date of the notice and the order of externment, were under investigation. Learned Advocate further submitted that the crime at Sr. No. 2, even if held to be available to respondent No.2, could not have been taken into consideration by the very nature of the said crime. As far as the crime at Sr. No.1 is concerned, learned Advocate submitted that since the said crime was registered on 14.09.2019, the said crime was stale crime for the purpose of this proceeding and not sufficient to establish the live link. Learned Advocate further submitted that the substance of the statements of the confidential witnesses was neither set out in the show cause notice nor in the externment order. Learned Advocate further submitted that the statements of the confidential witness were not duly verified by the respondent No.3. Learned Advocate further submitted that all the crimes were registered at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati City. Learned Advocate pointed out that the respondent No.3 ordered the externment of the