The externment order was invalidated due to procedural lapses, including the absence of in-camera statements in the show cause notice and reliance on stale offences, undermining the authority's subjective satisfaction.

JUDGMENT :

(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)

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

2. The petitioner is challenging the order of externment dated 29.7.2024 passed by respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur externing him from Chandrapur District for a period of one year.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner took us through the record and invited our attention to the contents of the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 13.5.2024 and submitted that in the said notice there is no whisper about recording of in-camera statements by respondent No.1 so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that due to apprehension of fear in the minds of witnesses they are not coming forward in public to depose against the petitioner. He submits that on the said ground alone, the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 stands vitiated.

4. Another ground raised by the petitioner is that the offences which are considered by the authority since 2018 to 2023 are stale offences along with prohibitory action dated 23.6.2023 by respondent No.1 while passing the externment order dated 29.7.2024. There is a delay in passing the order and there is no live link between the last offence and the order of externment passed by respondent No.1. Therefore, the externment order is passed on the basis of stale material and no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the authority.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that on the above grounds, the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 stands vitiated. Inasmuch as the requirement of provisions of Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act is concerned, it contemplates that the competent authority, who has initiated the externment proceedings, shall make a reference about the in-camera statements recorded and the gist of the version stated by these witnesses in the show cause notice. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the first place, neither there is a reference of recording of in-camera statements in the show cause notice nor there is a detailed reference or the gist of the allegations stated by the said witnesses in the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1.

6. Learned A.P.P. relying upon the original record and also notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur submits that there was a reference in the notice dated 8.11.2023 that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has issued a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act to the petitioner by mentioning all the details in respect of a crime chart and confidential statements. Hence on 29.1.2024 the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer through his Advocate and submitted his say and he was also given an opportunity of hearing and after considering all the material including a crime chart, confidential statements and one preventive action taken against the petitioner, the authority came to the conclusion that due to acts of the petitioner the people are feeling insecure and there is a threat to their life and property. Therefore, respondent No.1 has rightly passed the order externing the petitioner. Hence he submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed.

7. We have gone through the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the petition and the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order of externment.

8. On perusal of the contents of show cause notice which was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner on 13.5.2024, there is no mention of in-camera statements of witnesses recorded by respondent No.1. The contention of the learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that in the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chand