JUDGMENT By this writ petition the a petitioner seeks to challenge the order of externment. The petitioner is a resident of Nagpur. He is a petty transporter. It is alleged that he was involved in commission of many crimes including the crime under Sections 160, 324, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989). It is also alleged that the people in the locality are afraid of the present applicant. They do not come forward to give statement against the present applicant. Applicant is in the habit of giving threats to people and autorikshaw drivers. On these allegations notice was issued to the present petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed. After hearing him an externment order was passed by which he was directed to keep himself out of Nagpur Police Commission rate as well as Nagpur Rural for a period of 6 months. It is this order which is under challenge. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 3. Law is well settled that even where remedy of appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act is available a writ petition can be entertained. I need not dilate any more on the question and refer to the decisions that were cited. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act says that the externment authority should be satisfied that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm. danger or harm to the person or property and 2) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence relating affecting human body and life. 4. Show cause notice refers to 5 crimes. Those are crimes under Section 160, 324, 506, 294 Indian Penal Code and one under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989). These are certainly the offences which fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 56 in as much as they tend to cause alarm in the mind of the person and use of force or violence and threats. The externment order makes reference to these offences only and no other material except these offences is made use of. These are certainly the offences which fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 56 in as much as they tend to cause alarm in the mind of the person and use of force or violence and threats. The externment order makes reference to these offences only and no other material except these offences is made use of. It was contended that the disputes are only with a single person i.e. Manoj and therefore, there is no question of any alarm being caused in the mind in public in general or in the locality. It may be a dispute with Manoj but the fact is that nature of offence is such that it can cause alaram in the mind of others also. Offence of affray is said to be committed. Offence under Section 324 is also said to be committed and threats to kill are also said to be given in public place. These offences can cause alaram in the mind of public in general living in that area where such incidents take place. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice with regard to allegations of giving threats to the person purchasing paper and plastic was served. The notice shows that same incident is quoted twice and taken into account while passing order. It is not made clear even in the affidavit of State as to whether any in camera statements of the witnesses were recorded giving details as to when such incident had taken place and why that person could not come forward to lodge the report and what was the nature of the dispute. Since it appears that no such statements are recorded confidentially, it is difficult to accept the contention of the detaining authority that the people do not come forward to give report or make statement. Obviously, the material on which such allegations that witnesses or persons do not come forward is not supported by any evidence nor the copies of such statements if at all recorded were supplied to the present petitioner so that he could afford explanation in that regard. Obviously no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. 6. Further it was contended that the order is vitiated because of the fact that the petitioner is unnecessary externed from Nagpur Rural area. Obviously no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. 6. Further it was contended that the order is vitiated because of the fact that the petitioner is unnecessary externed from Nagpur Rural area. He submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner are confined to Rana Pratapnagar police station area falling in Urban Nagpur. My attention was drawn to externment order it makes reference to some areas falling in Ranapratap Nagar police station and areas adjoining to that area. It does not make reference to any areas in Nagpur Rural. Even the Crime Chart given in the show cause notice shows that not a single offence in Nagpur Rural area is registered against the present petitioner. Obviously, therefore, his activities are confined to Ranapratap Nagar police station area. It is held by this Court in Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Others, 2006(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 510 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2717], that mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district or part. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-State that Nagpur Rural area is adjoining to Ranapratap Nagar police station area. That may be so adjoining but no offence is said to be committed in the Rural area and the order of operation of the present petitioner cannot be said to extend beyond Nagpur City police in any case. In view of this it can be said that the order suffers from vice of being excessive. It is established law that order cannot be set aside in part, as a result the order of externment will have to be set aside. Petition is allowed. The order of externment is set aside. Petition allowed.