Judgment :- A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of externment bearing No.136/C/43 dated 16th May, 2011 under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) passed against the petitioner by respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioner has been directed not to enter or return to the specified areas for a period of one year from the date of which he removes himself or is removed outside the limits of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District without the prior written permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Chembur, Brhian Mumbai or the Government of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 19th February, 2011 issued under Section 59 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chembur Division, Mumbai proposing the externment of petitioner for one year from Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban Districts. The show-cause notice refers to around 22 criminal cases registered against the petitioner. Reference is then made to C.R.No.59/2011 for offence punishable under Section 506(II), 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the I.P.C.’), which is registered against the petitioner in connection with incident dated 2nd January, 2011. Reference is also made to in-camera statements of witnesses `A’, `B’ and `C’. On the basis of the said material, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why proposed order of externment should not be passed against him. The petitioner resisted the said show-cause notice by filing reply. 3. The Appropriate Authority besides considering the reply also heard the Advocate for the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. The Appropriate Authority after referring to the material on record adverted to in the show-cause notice as well as the reply, proceeded to pass the impugned order against the petitioner to extern him from the specified areas for a period of one year being satisfied that the petitioner’s acts are causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the shop-keepers and hawkers of the localities of Chembur Camp, Indira Nagar and the areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Chembur Police Station, Mumbai. The Appropriate Authority was also satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in the commission of offence like assault, threats, criminal intimidation and in running illegal Matkagambling activities along with his associates. The Appropriate Authority was also satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in the commission of offence like assault, threats, criminal intimidation and in running illegal Matkagambling activities along with his associates. The Appropriate Authority also noticed that in spite of externment proceedings held against the petitioner, he committed offence under Section 12(A)-4-87 of Mumbai Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 as well as criminal intimidation. On that basis, the Appropriate Authority formed opinion that the petitioner continued his criminal activities and is dangerous person to the society. He is engaged in commission of offence like assault, threats, criminal intimidation, running illegal Matkagambling activities and also offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. and that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner because of the several threats given by the petitioner. The victims and witnesses apprehend danger to their life and property from activities of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner then carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority has upheld the decision of the Appropriate Authority vide order dated 24th June, 2011. The abovesaid impugned externment order dated 16th May, 2011 and the decision of the Appellate Authority are the subject-matter of challenge in this Petition. 5. In the context of the contents of the impugned order of externment, the first contention raised by the petitioner is that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority is vitiated, as he has not only considered the relevant material but also irrelevant material. In that, the externing authority has considered and taken into account 22 criminal cases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. Those cases would be of no avail for initiating action under Section 56(1)(a) or for that matter, 56(1)(b), not being cases falling under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. For appreciating this argument, we may straightaway advert to Section 56 of the Act. Those cases would be of no avail for initiating action under Section 56(1)(a) or for that matter, 56(1)(b), not being cases falling under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. For appreciating this argument, we may straightaway advert to Section 56 of the Act. It provides that whenever it appears to the specified authority of the concerned area that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or that, 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 any offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the I.P.C. or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the said Officer by an order in writing duly served on the externee or by beat of drum or otherwise as he deems fit, direct the externee to remove himself outside the specified area within such time as may be specified and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified from which the externee is directed to remove himself. 6. According to the petitioner, going by the purport of Section 56 clauses (a) and (b), in particular, order of externment can be passed, if and only if, the criminal cases registered against the proposed externee are in respect of offences under I.P.C. In the present case, however, the Appropriate Authority considered even 22 cases registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act, a list whereof was appended to the show-cause notice. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the recital in the order of externment in Clause-I which refers to the activities of the petitioner. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the recital in the order of externment in Clause-I which refers to the activities of the petitioner. The same reads thus: “AND WHEREAS, evidence has been placed before me against the person known as Bharat Aaratmal Ramtara @ Kara, aged 51 years to the following fact:- I) That since 2004 (except when he was in Police/jail custody) in the localities of Chembur camp, Indira Nagar, and the areas adjoining there to in the jurisdiction of Chembur Police Station, Mumbai and surrounding areas, his acts and movements are causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the shop-keepers, hawkers, residents and businessmen of the aforesaid localities and the areas in that - (a) That the P.E. Is continuously engaged in running Matka gambling with his associates and his activities causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the residents, shopkeepers, hawkers and businessmen of the aforesaid localities. , (b) That he abused and assaulted the residents, hawkers, shopkeepers and businessmen of the aforesaid localities and areas when they opposed to P.E. In his illegal gambling activities, which are offences punishable under Chapter No.XVI of the Indian Penal Code. (c) That he committed assaults, extortion and ran illegal Matka- Gambling and criminal intimidation at the point of lethal weapons which are the offences punishable under Chapter No.XVII of the Indian Penal Code and the Mumbai Prevention of Gambling Act 1887.” 7. The argument though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. Indeed, the show-cause notice makes reference to 22 cases registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act. Even the recital in the order of externment makes reference to the said material placed along with the show-cause notice. However, the Appropriate Authority was conscious of the fact that those cases could not be taken into account or considered while examining the proposal for externment of the petitioner. That is evident from the recital in the impugned order of externment, which reads thus: “There are 22 cases registered against the P.E. Under Prevention of Gambling Act. However, to decide this proposal, I have considered only one case i.e. 59/2011 U/s.506(II), 504 IPC.” 8. That is evident from the recital in the impugned order of externment, which reads thus: “There are 22 cases registered against the P.E. Under Prevention of Gambling Act. However, to decide this proposal, I have considered only one case i.e. 59/2011 U/s.506(II), 504 IPC.” 8. Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the present case, the Appropriate Authority did not consider the 22 cases registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act while examining the proposal for externment of the petitioner. Instead, he confined the consideration with reference to only one criminal case i.e. 59/2011 under Section 506 (II) and 504 of the I.P.C. Thus understood, the ground under consideration will have to be negated. 9. That takes us to the second contention canvassed before us. According to the petitioner, the Appropriate Authority has opined that the victims and witnesses are unwilling to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner because of the threats given by the petitioner. Further, the victims and witnesses apprehend danger to their life and property from the petitioner. This opinion is noted in the impugned externment order in the following words : “AND WHEREAS, in my opinion, the victims and witnesses are unwilling to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the P.E. Because of the several threats given by the P.E. The victims and witnesses apprehend danger to their life and property from activities of the P.E.” 10. According to the petitioner, this opinion has been reached without reference to any material in support thereof in the impugned order of externment. We may straightaway accept the argument of the petitioner that even on fair reading of the impugned order of externment, there is no indication as to on what basis the above opinion is formed by the Appropriate Authority. However, the externment order will have to be read along with the show-cause notice and material accompanying thereto served on the petitioner. Indubitably, the impugned order of externment is based on the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner on 24th December, 2011 and the material accompanying thereto. In the show-cause notice, the gist of the in-camera statements of the three witnesses `A’, `B’ and `C’ have been reproduced. Indubitably, the impugned order of externment is based on the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner on 24th December, 2011 and the material accompanying thereto. In the show-cause notice, the gist of the in-camera statements of the three witnesses `A’, `B’ and `C’ have been reproduced. The said witnesses have in no uncertain terms, stated that the victims and witnesses were unwilling to come forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner because of the threats given by the petitioner and that they apprehend danger to their life and property from the activities of the petitioner. The said in-camera statements were therefore part of the proposal for externment considered by the Appropriate Authority. It is in the context of that material, the Appropriate Authority has formed opinion mentioned hitherto. In other words, the opinion of the Appropriate Authority is founded on the material referred to in the show-cause notice and contained in the proposal for proposed externment of the petitioner. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that there was no material whatsoever before the Appropriate Authority to form opinion referred to above, is untenable. 11. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appropriate Authority in the impugned order has in clear terms noted that he was deciding the proposal only on the basis of one criminal case. In that event, it was not open to infer that Appropriate Authority had also considered the three in-camera statements to form the opinion referred to above. This argument clearly overlooks that the factual position regarding consideration of material in the form of only one criminal case and with regard to opinion that the victims and witnesses were unwilling to come forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner has been noted separately. Both these aspects are independent and mutually exclusive. The three incamera statements are of the victims and witnesses. They have spoken about the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner for the stated reasons. 12. In the case of Ram Narayan Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Both these aspects are independent and mutually exclusive. The three incamera statements are of the victims and witnesses. They have spoken about the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner for the stated reasons. 12. In the case of Ram Narayan Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 1987 (1) Bom C.R. 471, relied upon by the petitioner, it was found as of fact that the externing authority has not shown as to how the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give testimony against the petitioner which is essential requirement for passing externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. In that case, the Court found that in the criminal case registered against the externee, as many as eight witnesses were cited in support of the prosecution case. The disputes were between specified persons of the village and the externee wherein he was the only accused. The witnesses in the said case had specifically named the externee and there was no grievance that those witnesses were not coming forward to give testimony against the petitioner. The criminal cases were pending in the Criminal Courts. On this finding of fact, the Court interfered with the externment order. 13. In the present case, however, the three in-camera statements revealed that victims and witnesses were unwilling to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner. In view of the above, the argument of the petitioner which is founded on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of PandharinathShridhar Rangnekar v. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 630 to the effect that an order of externment can be passed under Clauses (a) or (b) under Section 56, if and only if, the Authority concerned is satisfied that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property, would not take the matter any further for the petitioner. In the present case, the Appropriate Authority has recorded satisfaction in that behalf. Notably, the impugned order records that the Appropriate Authority had considered all the evidence and explanation given by the petitioner before forming his opinion which include the three in-camera statements. 14. In the present case, the Appropriate Authority has recorded satisfaction in that behalf. Notably, the impugned order records that the Appropriate Authority had considered all the evidence and explanation given by the petitioner before forming his opinion which include the three in-camera statements. 14. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied on unreported decision of Single Judge of our High Court in the case of ChangdeoChandar Bahira v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. inCriminal Writ Petition No.253/2007 decided on July 20, 2007. Emphasis was placed on observations in Paragraph No.6 of the said decision. The said decision refers to and follows the earlier decisions in the case of Ram Narayan Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 471 ], Yashwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane & Anr. [1989 Mh.L.J. 1111] and ChhotuSiddinath Kunwar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [1989 Mh.L.J. 1021]. In Paragraph No.7 of the said unreported decision, the Court found as of fact that there was no material in the externment order to the effect that no witnesses were willing to depose against the petitioner in public out of apprehension or fear to their personal security or property. In view of the finding recorded by us in the present case that there was not only material to form opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come in open to depose against the petitioner due to fear but even the Appropriate Authority has duly considered the same to form his opinion in that behalf, the argument of the petitioner under consideration cannot be taken forward. 15. That takes us to the next submission of the petitioner. It was argued that taking the impugned externment order as it is, it is obvious that the Appropriate Authority took into account only one criminal case registered against the petitioner, that too, which is pending trial. According to the petitioner, the action of externment which is equated with preventive action, could not be sustained on the basis of only one criminal case. Similar argument was considered by one of us in the case of PramilaAnand Sing v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 14. That contention did not find favour with the Court. Similar argument was considered by one of us in the case of PramilaAnand Sing v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 14. That contention did not find favour with the Court. Inasmuch as in the present case, besides the one registered criminal case, the Appropriate Authority has relied upon and considered three in-camera statements of victims and witnesses about other independent instances and who have spoken about the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner. Even in another decision in the case of GafoorDastagir Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2005 (3 Mh.L.J. 463, the Court negatived similar contention. In the case of BhagubhaiDullabhbhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Thana & Ors. reported in 1956 SC 585, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court opined that it cannot be laid down that unless each and every witness is unwilling to give evidence in open court, the provisions of Section 56 are not available to the police. The Court further opined that if the Officer concerned is satisfied that witnesses, of whatever description they may be, are not willing to come out in the open, one of the essential conditions of the application of Section 56 is fulfilled and it is no more necessary for them to stop to consider as to which class of persons those witnesses may come from. In this view of the matter, even the argument of the petitioner that the impugned externment action is vitiated as it is based only on solitary criminal case registered against the petitioner, will have to be stated to be rejected. 16. The next argument of the petitioner was that the impugned order of externment suffers from non-application of mind - inasmuch as in Clause II of the recitals, it is noted that in the year 2011, the petitioner had committed several acts of the nature mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph No.I of the Order. We have already extracted Paragraph No.I of the Order in the earlier part of this Judgment (See Paragraph No.6 above). We have already extracted Paragraph No.I of the Order in the earlier part of this Judgment (See Paragraph No.6 above). The argument proceeds that there was no material before the Appropriate Authority to form opinion that the petitioner was continuously engaged in running Matkagambling with his associates and his activities causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the residents, shopkeepers, hawkers and businessmen of the aforesaid localities, and that, he abused and assaulted the residents, hawkers, shopkeepers and businessmen of the said localities and areas when they opposed the petitioner in his illegal gambling activities, which are offences punishable under Chapter No.XVI of the I.P.C. In the first place, this submission clearly overlooks the material on record considered by the Appropriate Authority. As aforesaid, amongst other material, the Appropriate Authority considered the three in-camera statements. All the three in-camera statements refer to the incidents of different dates of year 2011, in the concerned localities which would indicate that the alleged activities of the petitioner were causing and calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the residents, shopkeepers, hawkers and businessmen of the said localities and the petitioner abused and assaulted them when they opposed the petitioner in his illegal gambling activities. In other words, Clause (II) of the order of externment is founded on the contents of the three in-camera statements which pertain to the alleged activities of the petitioner committed in the year 2011 on different dates mentioned by the said witnesses. Thus understood, it is not possible to countenance the submission of the petitioner that there was no material before the Appropriate Authority in support of the factual position noted in Paragraph No.2 of the impugned order or that the decision of the Appropriate Authority suffers from non-application of mind for lack of such material. Accordingly, even this contention of the petitioner will have to be negatived. No other contention is raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 17. While parting, we may note that the respondents besides the contents of the show-cause notice and the impugned order of externment, attempted to justify the action against the petitioner on the basis of the contents of the affidavit filed by the externing authority to oppose this Petition. No other contention is raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 17. While parting, we may note that the respondents besides the contents of the show-cause notice and the impugned order of externment, attempted to justify the action against the petitioner on the basis of the contents of the affidavit filed by the externing authority to oppose this Petition. It is not necessary for us to dilate on the contents of the said affidavit for the opinion already recorded by us in the earlier part of this decision. We are also not non-suiting the petitioner because of the facts noted in the further unaffirmed affidavit of the Assistant Police Inspector which was tendered by the learned A.P.P. during the course of arguments to inform the Court that the petitioner is indulging in repeated acts within the jurisdiction of Chembur Police Station even while he is externed from the said area in terms of the impugned externment order. At least three cases have been registered against him during this time on 28th July, 2011, 20th August, 2011 and 31st August, 2011 respectively. As a matter of fact, if the said allegation is correct, that itself can be a good ground to dismiss the Writ Petition. However, since we find that the grounds urged before us are devoid of merits, we refrain from going into the said aspect of the matter. 18. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, the Petition fails. The same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.