Judgment :- 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of externment passed by the competent authority dated 27th January, 2010 which order was confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal which was decided on 16th April, 2010. By the said order of externment, the petitioner has been externed from five districts viz. Thane, Greater Bombay, Raigad, Nashik and Ahmednagar. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order of externment has been passed of extraneous consideration and secondly, the said order is excessive inasmuch as though the show cause notice makes reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner in village Kashimira, District Thane, the petitioner has been externed from five districts. It is submitted that in the show cause notice, no reference has been made about the prejudicial activities committed by the petitioner in the other four districts. It is submitted that therefore, on this ground alone, the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Secondly, it is submitted that in the impugned order, reference has been made to in camera statement of three witnesses. It is submitted that however, in the show cause notice, no such reference has been made about any in-camera statement. It is, therefore, submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain and make a representation in respect of the said in-camera statements. In support of the said submission, the petitioner is relying on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1450/1998 decided on 20th November, 1998 and another judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemant Kakare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and another, reported, in 1989 Maharashtra Law Journal Page 1111. 4. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is a well settled position in law that if an order of externemnt is passed externing the petitioner from five districts and no reference is made to the prejudicial activity committed by him in those districts in the show cause notice, the said order is excessive and on that ground alone, the order of externment is liable to be quashed while exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. It is an admitted position that the show cause notice does not refer to any such activity by the petitioner in other districts except village Kashimira and District Thane. The order, therefore, is clearly excessive and is beyond the scope of the show cause notice which has been issued by the respondents. Secondly, the order of externment relies on certain in-camera statements. No reference has been made about the said in-camera statements. It is, thus, obvious that the externing authority has relied on certain material which is not referred to in the show cause notice. The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, therefore, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. On this ground alone, the order of externment is liable to be quashed. 5. Writ Petition, accordingly, is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).