Judgment Rule. Shri D.B. Yengal, learned A.P.P. waives service for the respondent/State. By consent heard finally. 2. By this petition the petitioner takes the exception to order passed by the Principal Secretary (A & S) Mantralaya, Mumbai whereby the learned Principal Secretary dismissed the appeal challenging externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia directing externment of the petitioner from the Districts of Wardha Gondia, Bhandara, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Nagpur. 3. By notice dated 22.12.2004, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had asked the petitioner about show cause as to why he should not be externed from the District of Nagpur, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Wardha, Bhandara and Gondiya because of petitioner's involvement in a number of offences registered at police station Gondia city, which, in the view of Sub-Divisional Magistrate threatened the lives and property of people at large. After considering the petitioner's reply in which the petitioner stated that police had filed false case under Bombay Prohibition Act and that there was no crime of assault or property offence against him, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal Secretary. After considering the petitioner's contention, the Principal Secretary observed that the petitioner was stated to have been involved from 1996 to 2004 in 20 offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act and Indian Penal Code and, therefore, there was no substance in the petitioner's contention. The learned Principal Secretary also held that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to submit his say before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner's appeal was therefore, dismissed. 4. Aggrieved thereby, this petition has been filed. The petitioner contends that he was not told for which offence he was sought to be externed in the notice issued to him. He stated that even the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, does not mention the offences for which the petitioner was sought to be externed. According to the petitioner, he has been acquitted in as many as four cases and has annexed copies of judgment therein at Annexure-4. The petitioner submits that orders passed are classic examples of non-application of mind and are excessive and, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate shows that apart from the various crimes registered against the petitioner, the petitioner threatens the local residents and, therefore, people are afraid of him. 5. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, Sub- Divisional Magistrate shows that apart from the various crimes registered against the petitioner, the petitioner threatens the local residents and, therefore, people are afraid of him. Copies of statements of three such persons Bhimrao Jaipal Galole, Umrao Dayaram Kukde, Madhu Jujoba Patle and Omprakash Kawaduji Bankar have been filed on record. Though the reply states that the crime list was duly served on the petitioner along with notice dated 8.12.2004, copy of petitioner's reply which is also filed by the respondents does not show that the petitioner had been served with any list of crimes. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. There can be no doubt that the petitioner was not informed as to which offence by the petitioner led the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conclude that the petitioner was likely to harm the lives and property of people at large. Copies of judgments in Criminal Cases No. 3511/2000 and 350/2003 Regular Criminal Case No. 18/1997 and Regular Criminal Case No. 280/2004 (in which the offence was compounded) show that accused was acquitted in three cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that on the basis of some prohibition cases filed against the petitioner he has been externed from five Districts. Relying on judgment of this Court in Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others 2006 (1) Mh. L. J. 510, the learned counsel submitted that since it was not shown that the petitioner was involved in any criminal activity outside Gondia, there was absolutely no warrant for passing any such sweeping order. The order therefore suffers from the vice of being excessive. The order does not give any reason as to why the Sub-Divisional Magistrate felt that externment of the petitioner was necessary from all these Districts. For the same purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in Mr. Kishore Rajaram Durge Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2023 and Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2001 (3) Mh. L.J. 926. Relying on the judgment of Dhananjay Manohar Sapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (2) Mh. Kishore Rajaram Durge Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2023 and Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2001 (3) Mh. L.J. 926. Relying on the judgment of Dhananjay Manohar Sapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (2) Mh. L.J. 384, the learned counsel submitted that provision of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act would be attracted only if the movement or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm, to person or property, or, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged, or is about to be engaged, in the commission of an offence involving force or violence, or an offence relating to coin and Government stamps, or affecting the human body and life, or against property or theft. He therefore, submitted that some involvement in offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act would not attract provision of Section 56 of the said Act. 7. The order of S.D.M. refers to the witness produced by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but there is no reference to the witnesses for the State whose statements are produced at Annexure-1 to 4 with affidavit in reply, and which may have been considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned counsel submitted that the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 before this Court shows that statement of Bhimrao Jaipal Galole and others annexed to the reply might have influenced the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, though this material was not disclosed to the petitioner. Therefore, relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Sajjid Iqbal @ Sk. Imam Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 671 and Prakash Supdu Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra 1993 Mh.L.J.816. The learned counsel submitted that the order was liable to be quashed. 8. Therefore, relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Sajjid Iqbal @ Sk. Imam Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 671 and Prakash Supdu Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra 1993 Mh.L.J.816. The learned counsel submitted that the order was liable to be quashed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are thoroughly unsustainable first, for not informing the petitioner of the material against him (namely the crime list); Secondly, in taking into consideration the material which was not made available to the petitioner (namely, statements of witnesses); thirdly, for disclosing no reason as to why petitioner's externment was necessary from five districts, when his activities were restricted only to Gondia; and lastly, because the orders do not show as to how the provisions of Section 56 of Bombay Police Act are attracted. The attempt of the learned A.P.P. to support the impugned orders though valiant, can not add to what is missing from the orders. Therefore, since, the order does not disclose as to why the petitioner was sought to be externed from five Districts, it suffers from the vice of being excessive. Since the order does not mention that the material which was relied on by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was made available to the petitioner and he was given opportunity to repell it, it is suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Lastly, since it has not been shown as to how provision of 56 of Bombay Police Act are attracted by the alleged criminal activity of the petitioner, the orders indicates non application of mind and hence the orders are unsustainable. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.