Oral Judgment Heard Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Agrawal, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. In this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the Order dated 8.8.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioner is externed from Amravati City and Amravati Rural. The said order was passed after the petitioner was given show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The impugned order has been assailed on the following three grounds. i) In the impugned order the respondent no.2 has placed reliance upon the materials which are not the subject matter of the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Act. ii) The impugned order is excessive inasmuch as the activities mentioned in the show cause notice are in relation to the jurisdiction of Badnera Police Station and in the impugned order the petitioner has been externed from Amravati City and Amravati Rural. iii) The satisfaction reached by the respondent no.2 that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner is premature. 4. In support of the first ground the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the show cause notice and the impugned order. In the show cause notice reference is made to six criminal cases against the applicant out of which five cases were pending whereas in the impugned order not only these six cases but additional material has been relied upon for the purpose of passing the impugned order. In so far as this ground is concerned, the issue is no more as res intergra and is covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemant Karkare Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and another (1989 Mh. L.J 1111). Mr. Agrawal, learned A.P.P. could not point out any contrary decision. That being the position, the petitioner is bound to succeed on the first ground itself. I do not deem it necessary to deal with the other grounds since the petitioner is succeeding on the first ground. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8.8.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.