The subjective satisfaction for externment must be based on objective material, and the order must pass all legal tests, including strict compliance with the relevant act and consideration of extraordinary circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

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

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of externment passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati dtd. 5/4/2022 and the order in appeal dtd. 29/9/2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati District Amravati. The respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings for externment of the petitioner from Amravati District by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951"). The respondent No.2 to record his subjective satisfaction, relied upon the following crimes. The said crimes are set out hereinbelow in tabulated form:

4. The respondent No.2 conducted necessary inquiry. He issued a notice to the petitioner on 24/3/2022 to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the Amravati District. The respondent No.2, based on the material collected, passed the order of externment on 5/4/2022. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 29/9/2022, though found certain deficiencies in the order of externment, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the said order.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained at all inasmuch as the satisfaction arrived at was based on the four crimes in which the petitioner was already acquitted. Learned Advocate submitted that these stale crimes were taken into consideration to record the subjective satisfaction. There was no live link between those crimes as well as the externment proceeding initiated in the year 2022. Learned Advocate further submitted that in the show cause notice dtd. 24/3/2022 the substance of the statement of the witnesses, was not stated. The petitioner, therefore, did not get an opportunity to deal with the show cause notice appropriately. Learned Advocate further submitted that two chapter cases, wherein the petitioner has executed bonds were taken into consideration. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no mention in the orders that the petitioner has committed the breach of the conditions of the bond for good behaviour executed by him. Learned Advocate submitted that in remaining three cases at Sr. No. 4, 6 and 7 the petitioner has been released on bail. These cases are pending before the Court. Learned Advocate submitted that the last crime registered against the petitioner was on 10/8/2020. The notice issued by the respondent No.2 was dtd. 24/3/2022. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that there was time gap of two years between the last crime relied upon and the date of notice as well as the order of externment dtd. 5/4/2022. Learned Advocate submitted that, therefore, the live link sought to be established on the basis of these three crimes was completely snapped. Learned Advocate further submitted that the order of externment from the entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years was excessive. Learned Advocate pointed out that no reasons have been recorded in the order for warranting the externment of the petitioner from entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years. Learned Advocate submitted that there was no objective material to arrive at subjective satisfaction sought to be asserted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for passing the externment order. Learned Advocate submitted that the respondent No.1, the appellate authority, has not dealt with the aspect of subjective satisfaction arrived at on the basis of the crimes in which the petitioner was acquitted. Learned Advocate submitted that the appellate authority apart from making a mention of this fact in the order was required to consider the same appropriately. On all these grounds the learned Advocate submitted that the order of exte