The externment order was upheld as it demonstrated due application of mind and complied with legal standards regarding public safety concerns.

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 10.08.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone No.5, Nagpur City and the order dated 18.10.2021 in appeal No. 31/2021 passed by respondent No.1, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. The petitioner has been externed in terms of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act from the Nagpur City and contiguous area falling under the jurisdiction of Kanhan, Khaparkheda and Mauda Police Station for the period of two years. The statutory appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act , has been turned down by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground of malafide, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. He would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the Externing Authority without subjective satisfaction. The show cause notice does not bear the details as to the date, time and place of the incidents narrated by the in-camera witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of meeting the allegation levelled by those two witnesses. Secondly, the offences on which externment order is based does not affect the law and public order. It is canvassed that the petitioner is a peace loving person, earning his livelihood by running Pan kiosk. The petitioner is doing social work which is disliked by the people who in turn have filed false reports against him. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner was not convicted in either of the offences. On these grounds, the impugned order is sought to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, the respondents have justified impugned action by filing reply-affidavit. A show cause notice dated 15.06.2021 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone No. 5, Nagpur City in terms of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act about intended externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act . The show cause notice contains five offences registered against the petitioner and reference of in-camera statements. The petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he shall not be externed for the period of two years from the specified area. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner has attended the office of the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Police along with witnesses to furnish his explanation. The petitioner has filed written explanation to the show cause notice through Advocate, however after considering the material, externment order has been passed. It would be helpful to make brief reference of the offences shown pending against the petitioner as under:-

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice is illegal as it does not disclose the day, date, time and place about the occurrences contained in the in-camera statements. In other words, it is submitted that the show cause notice is bereft of the particulars and therefore, it loses its sanctity. In support of said contention, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in case of K