The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient material and subjective satisfaction in making externment orders under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT

SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard fnally at admission stage.

2. The petitioner has fled this criminal writ petition challenging the order dtd. 08/10/2021 passed by respondent No.3 SubDivisional Magistrate, Kinvat, District Nanded in Proceeding No.2021/Externment Order/Kinvat/Proceeding No.04, whereby the petitioner has been externed from entire Nanded District for a period of six months. The petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 12/01/2022 passed by respondent No.1 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad in proceeding No.2021/GA/Room-1/Pol-1/Externment/CR-71, whereby appeal under Sec. 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been rejected and the earlier impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 is confrmed.

3. Background facts are as under :

The petitioner claims that he is a respectable, well educated and law abiding person having roots in the society. He is also a journalist by profession. However, without there being any cause of action or sustainable ground, a proposal dtd. 30/06/2021 for his externment under the provisions of Sec. 56 (1)(b) of the Act was moved by the Police Inspector of Kinvat Police Station i.e. present respondent no.5. In the said proposal, externment of the petitioner was proposed from Nanded and Yavatmal districts for a period of two years. The said proposal was forwarded through respondent no.4 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Police Offcer, Sub-Division, Kinvat. In view of the said proposal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent no.3 issued notice dtd. 12/08/2021 to the petitioner asking him for appearance on 20/08/2021 with written submission. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent no.3 and fled his detailed say by denying all the adverse allegations made against him in the said notice. The petitioner contended that he did not involve in any criminal activity and his acts were not at all dangerous to the society as he never convicted by any competent court. According to him, there were only two crimes registered against him in Kinvat Police Station in the year, 2017 and 2021. Out of those crimes, one is now pending before the court, bearing RCC No.75 of 2018 and informant and his mother in the said crime, have already fled an affdavit before the concerned court that no such incident mentioned in the complaint had taken place. However, respondent no.3 then passed the impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 and thereby externed the petitioner from entire Nanded district for a period of six months. The petitioner then challenged the said order dtd. 08/10/2021 before respondent no.1 by preferring an appeal under Sec. 60 of the Act. However, respondent no. 1 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal vide its order dtd. 12/01/2022. Hence, this criminal writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the aforesaid impugned orders are erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that both the authorities below have passed the impugned orders with mala fde intention since the petitioner fled applications under RTI Act to disclose corrupt practices of government servants. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no suffcient material on record to take such drastic action of externment against the petitioner since his behaviour is not at all deterrent to public at large. He further submits that the nature of crimes registered against the petitioner, is private and in one of those crimes, the informant is ready to compromise the same. He further submits that both the impugned orders are excessive in nature and passed without application of mind by the authorities below and that too without subjective satisfaction. Besides oral submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heavily relied on following judgments :

I) Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2022 [ SLP (Cri.) No. 9032 of 2021] (Deepak s