Judgment : AbhayM. Thipsay, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The learned APP waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, externing the petitioner from Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years under the provisions of section 56(1)(a), 56(1) (b) and 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, (Act No.XXII of 1951) [Previous short title changed by the Maharashtra (Change of Short Titles of Certain Bombay Act) Act 2011, (Mah.Act No.24 of 2012] (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and confirmed in appeal under section 60 of the said Act, by the Secretary (Special) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. 4. The petitioner is a resident of 427, Indira Nagar Zopad Patti, Pune. He was served with a notice dated 14 January 2013, as contemplated under section 59 of the said Act, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Pune City, Pune District and five adjoining districts for a period of two years under the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (bb) of sub-section (1) of section 56 of the said Act. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, appeared before the externing authority and also produced witnesses on his behalf. However, the externing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be externed under the provisions of the aforesaid clauses of section 56(1) and therefore, passed an externment order on 5 April 2013, as aforesaid. 5. A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner. It is contended, inter alia, that the show cause notice was vague, and therefore, bad-in-law. It is also contended that under which clauses of sub-section (1) of section 56, the petitioner was proposed to be externed, was not clear from the said show cause notice. It is also submitted that the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, were taken into consideration for arriving at a decision to extern the petitioner, and that the same was not permissible. 6. We have heard Mr.Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the respondents. 7. We have carefully gone through the notice under section 59, the order of externment as passed by the Dy. 6. We have heard Mr.Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the respondents. 7. We have carefully gone through the notice under section 59, the order of externment as passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, and the order passed by the Secretary (Special) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, dismissing the appeal under section 60 of the said Act filed by the petitioner. 8. In the show cause notice, it was mentioned that it was proposed to extern the petitioner under the provisions of section 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b) and 56(1)(bb). It was mentioned that two persons, who were described as “A” and “B” had complained about the petitioner having threatened and extorted money from them, and that as they were afraid of the petitioner, they had not lodged any report regarding the said incidents to the police. In the show cause notice, the details of nine cases pending against the petitioner were given as follows:- Sr. No Police Station C.R.No. Section Present Position 1 Swargate 6014/2011 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation 2 Swargate 6015/2011 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation 3 Swargate 52/2012 Indian Penal Code, Sec.324,504, Pending in Court 506, 343 4 Swargate 6002/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Pending in Court 5 Swargate 6012/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Pending in Court 6 Swargate 6013/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation 7 Swargate 6017/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation 8 Swargate 6018/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation 9 Swargate 6030/2012 Mumbai Prohibition Act, Sec.65(d) Investigation Similarly, in the externment order also, there is a reference to all the aforesaid cases. 9. In the view that we are taking, we do not find it necessary to discuss all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition, particularly with respect to the vagueness in the show cause notice etc. It is because we find that the petition is bound to succeed on the ground that the externment order has been influenced by irrelevant considerations. 10. The show cause notice was in respect of clauses (a), (b) and (bb) of sub-section(1) of section 56. Satisfaction as to the existence of all the grounds, as mentioned in these three clauses, has been recorded by the externing authority. In doing so, the externing authority has taken into consideration the pendency of cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act against the petitioner. Satisfaction as to the existence of all the grounds, as mentioned in these three clauses, has been recorded by the externing authority. In doing so, the externing authority has taken into consideration the pendency of cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act against the petitioner. Clearly, the pendency of such cases would not amount to fulfillment of the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 56. Similarly, clause (bb) refers to 'reasonable grounds for believing that the proposed externee is acting or is about to act, in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as defined in the Maharashtra Provision of Communal Anti Social and Damages, Activities Act, 1980. (Maharashtra VII of 1981)', or that 'the proposed externee is acting or about to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of Commodities essential to the Community, as defined in the explanation of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980'. In the first place, it is not clear as to under which part of clause (bb), the action was proposed or ultimately taken. Apart from this, though there is a clear mention in clause (bb) that the phrase 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' has to be construed in accordance with the definition of such a phrase as given in the aforesaid Maharashtra Act VII of 1981. (hereinafter Maharashtra VII of 1981), the externing authority as well as the appellate authority has failed to refer to the definition of the said term as given in section 2 of the said Maharashtra Act VII of 1981. This definition does not cover the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. 11. It is obvious and is not in dispute that the pendency of the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act was taken into consideration by the externing authority while arriving at a decision to extern the petitioner. Except one case which is of a bodily offence, all other cases said to be pending against the petitioner are in respect of offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and pendency of such cases was not a consideration on which the decision to extern the petitioner could have been arrived at. 12. Except one case which is of a bodily offence, all other cases said to be pending against the petitioner are in respect of offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and pendency of such cases was not a consideration on which the decision to extern the petitioner could have been arrived at. 12. It is one of the settled principles of law that when a power is conferred on an authority – even an administrative authority – by a statute, it must be exercised on the considerations relevant to the purpose for which it is conferred. It is also well settled that if the authority takes into account irrelevant or extraneous considerations, the exercise of power by the authority will be ultra-vires, and the action would be bad-in-law. It is also well settled that even where the action of a statutory authority is based on 'mixed considerations' i.e. partly relevant and partly irrelevant or non-existent, still, such action would be bad, where the conclusion is required to be based on subjective satisfaction of such authority. The reason behind the rule is simple and logical. It is not possible for the Court to decide as to what extent the irrelevant or non-existent grounds have operated on the mind of the authority and whether, it would have passed the same order even without those irrelevant or non-existent grounds. 13. Clearly, in this case, irrelevant considerations viz. Pendency of cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act against the petitioner, were taken into account by the externing authority. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that other considerations which were relevant and existing, were also taken into account by the existing authority for arriving at a conclusion, still, it would not be possible for the Court to decide as to what extent the externing authority was influenced by the aforesaid irrelevant considerations. 14. Once the invalidity or irrelevancy of some of the reasons or grounds on which the externment order came to be passed is established, the validity of the externment order cannot be upheld. 15. We thus, conclude that the externment order is atleast partly based on irrelevant considerations and non-existing grounds. 14. Once the invalidity or irrelevancy of some of the reasons or grounds on which the externment order came to be passed is established, the validity of the externment order cannot be upheld. 15. We thus, conclude that the externment order is atleast partly based on irrelevant considerations and non-existing grounds. It is not possible to decide how far the externing authority was influenced by such irrelevant considerations and non-existing grounds in arriving at its ultimate conclusion, and what would have been the decision had these irrelevant considerations and non-existing grounds had been kept away from the decision making process. As such, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is vitiated on that count. 16. The appellate authority has also failed to apply its mind to this aspect of the matter. Since on this ground alone, the impugned order is bad-in-law and needs to be interfered with, we are not discussing whether the same also suffers from any other vices. 17. Petition succeeds. 18. The order dated 5 April 2013 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City, as also the order dated 17 June 2013 passed by the Secretary (Special) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, are quashed and set aside. 19 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.