Judgment Heard. 2. Perused the petition and annexures. 3. Relevant dates are as follows:- 4. In all 15 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. 5. Out of those 15 cases, following cases are under Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. Proposal for externment (a) 17-03-2009 was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Sub Divisional Police (b) 23-03-2009 Officer was appointed Sub Divisional Magistrate as Enquiry Officer. (c) 16-09-2009 Show cause notice by SDPO. (d) 18-09-2009 Adjournment and hearing before SDPO inquiring authority. (e) 20-10-2009 SDPO recommended the externment Notice for externment was (f) 05-11 -2009 issuedby SDO. (g) 16-12-2010 Order of externment. Sr.No. Police Station Particulars of offence 49/1999 under Section 307 of the 1 WardhaCity I.P.C. read with Section 27 of Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act. 2 WardhaCity 365/02 under Section 452,435,427 r/w Section 34. 3 WardhaCity 123/2003 under Section 147,148,149,324,448, 427 of the I.P.C. 4 WardhaCity 361/2004 under Section 452, 147,148,149,427 5 WardhaCity 3282/2009 u/s 4 of Arms Act. 6. Remaining offences narrated in the notice and order are spread over between 2003 to 2008 and are either under Bombay Prohibition Act or under Bombay Prevention of Gambling act and are outside the compass of Section 56 of Bombay Police Act. 7. As far as the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act are concerned, those are filed over spread of 9 years, as is evident from the year referred to in foregoing para No.5. 8. It is pleaded and it is not disputed that in most of the cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 9. It is evident that exigence of preventive action as contemplated by Section 56 and 59 of Bombay Police Act has been sabotaged. 10. The spirit of urgency with which hearing was completed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer i.e. within four days was totally spoiled by taking 13 months in passing the order. 11. When orders are passed leisurely, it defeats the purpose of recourse to the emergent device provided for under Bombay Police Act. 12. In order to substantiate the point as regards the delay, the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Santosh Ramprasad Sharma Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch & another (1992 Cri. L.J. 3983), (b) Shabbirbhai Bookwala & another Vs. State of Mah. & othrs (2011 ALL MR (Cri) (c) Shaikh Dayan Shaikh Lukman Vs. 12. In order to substantiate the point as regards the delay, the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Santosh Ramprasad Sharma Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch & another (1992 Cri. L.J. 3983), (b) Shabbirbhai Bookwala & another Vs. State of Mah. & othrs (2011 ALL MR (Cri) (c) Shaikh Dayan Shaikh Lukman Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (Criminal Appeal No.1851 of 2011, decided on 23rd September, 2011 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (d) Un-reported Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.426 of 2007, Saimudkhan S/o of Sardarkhan VS. State of Maharashtra and two others (since reported in (Coram:A. H. Joshi J). 13. Considering the entirety of the matter, it is evident that neither there existed any threat to peace and tranquility nor any need of preventive action. Any urge and urgency is not seen in the acts and behaviour by the authorities. 14. Moreover, the delay defeats the object and causes injustice and consequently, vitiates the order, so happened in the present case too. 15. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i), along with order Annexure-III dated 4-6-2011 confirming it. 16. No costs.