JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 16th May, 2013 passed by the learned Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, thereby confirming the order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Thane, externing him from the revenue District of Thane for a period of one year. 2. We have heard this petition finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. Hence Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondents. 3. We have heard Mr. Bansode, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pai, learned A.P.P. For the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, equity and good conscience and is based upon such a material which is not in proximate relation with the purpose sought to be achieved by externing the petitioner from the limits of Districts of Thane. According to him, the material that has been relied upon by these authorities is extremely insufficient and also has no bearing upon the satisfaction that is required to be recorded for taking action in terms of the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. On these grounds, he has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has argued that there is absolutely no justification shown by the petitioner warranting indulgence of this Court in setting aside the impugned order. She has submitted that the show cause notice dated 11th December, 2012 mentions sufficient details of various criminal activities of the petitioner and also specific incidents referred to by two witnesses whose statements were recorded confidentially. This material, according to her, is sufficient to show that ingredients of sub-sections 1(a) & (b) of Section 56 of the Act have been fulfilled in this case and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be upheld by this Court. 6. This material, according to her, is sufficient to show that ingredients of sub-sections 1(a) & (b) of Section 56 of the Act have been fulfilled in this case and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be upheld by this Court. 6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, we have gone through the memo of the petition and also all the documents annexed thereto, including the order of the appellate authority dated 16th May, 2013 and order of externment dated 18th February, 2013 and we do not think that this is a case which requires no interference by this Court with the impugned orders. 7. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th May, 2013 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane on 18th February, 2013. The basic order of externment dated 18th February, 2013 is based upon a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Division, Thane to the petitioner on 11st December, 2012. Therefore, it would be necessary for us to first examine the show cause notice and the basic order of externment and see whether they satisfy the requirements of law or not. 8. The show cause notice dated 11th December, 2012 has been issued to the petitioner under Sub-sections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, whereas the externment order dated 18th February, 2013 refers to Section 56 of the Act. This order neither mentions sub-section 1(a) nor sub-section 1 (b). However, considering the reasons stated therein namely, that the movements or actions of the petitioner and his associates are dangerous and there is a possibility of causing by him alarm, danger or harm to the person and property and that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner and these reasons being related to ingredients of sub-section 1(a), it can be inferred that the basic externment order has been issued under Section 56(1)(a) of the act. 9. 9. For taking action under Section 56(1)(a) of the Act, two requirements must be fulfilled namely, (i) the movements or acts of a person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and (ii) the authority is satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such a person fearing harm to their person or property. The authorities must reach a subjective satisfaction that both these requirements are fulfilled in a given case as can be seen from the judgments in the case of (See Bombay High Court Writ Petition no.3391 of 2012 decided on 25th July, 2013) MangalLonde V/s. Dr. D.S. Swami, Deputy Commissioner of Police and another and (1989 (3) SCR 240) -YeshwantDamodar Patil V/s. Hemant Karkar, Deputy Commissioner and such a subjective satisfaction must be referable to some material which could be objectively tested. Such material must be of such a nature as to enable any prudent person to draw an inference that there are criminal activities giving rise to reasonable apprehension that they cause or are calculated to cause alarm, harm or danger to the person or property and that witnesses are afraid of speaking up in public against such a person. No inference can be drawn about causing of alarm, harm or danger to person or property, unless there is some continuous and consistent movement or action of dangerous propensity on the part of the concerned person. Similarly, without there being some repetitiveness to the dangerous activities, there cannot be any apprehension nurtured by the witnesses to depose against such a person in public. That apart, there is also required to be present on record another factor. The prejudicial activities must have proximity of relationship with the mischiefs sought to be suppressed which in fact are the objects behind the action of externment. These objects are obviously about ensuring prevention of alarm, danger or harm to the person or property and instilling a sense of security and safety in the minds of the prospective witnesses to encourage them to speak the truth against the concerned person. These objects are obviously about ensuring prevention of alarm, danger or harm to the person or property and instilling a sense of security and safety in the minds of the prospective witnesses to encourage them to speak the truth against the concerned person. If the criminal behaviour had taken place sometime in the remote past and there being no links remaining alive so as to connect that criminal past with the present state of affairs vis-a-vis the person, it would have to be said that proximity of relationship of past activities with the object sought to be attained by externment has ceased to exist. In such a case, externment action would be illegal. These are the essential requirements of sub-section 1(a) of Section 56 of the Act. 10. Now, if we take a look at the show cause notice and the first impugned order, we would find that the above stated essential requirements of law have not been fulfilled in this case. Show cause notice refers to seven criminal cases and four chapter cases against the petitioners. We will deal with Chapter cases at a later stage. Speaking about criminal cases, the years of registration of these seven cases would show that there are long gaps in between and continuity is broken. Learned Deputy Commissioner of Police, the externing authority has, however, considered only three cases out of seven. One of them is of the year 2010 and two of them are of 2012. There is a considerable gap between 2010 and 2012 cases. On the basis of such cases alone, it would be difficult to arrive at the satisfaction that the petitioner has a dangerous criminal character so much so that the persons are apprehensive about their lives and properties, safety and security. In other words this material by itself would not be sufficient to conclude that the movements or actions of the petitioner are causing alarm, danger or harm to the person or property. This gives rise to a question – whether there is any other additional material relied upon by the externing authority ? Upon close examination of the basic impugned order, the answer has to be given as an emphatic no. 11. The basic order of externment does not refer to any In-camera statements mentioned in the show cause notice. But it does refer to four Chapter cases filed against the petitioner. Upon close examination of the basic impugned order, the answer has to be given as an emphatic no. 11. The basic order of externment does not refer to any In-camera statements mentioned in the show cause notice. But it does refer to four Chapter cases filed against the petitioner. These Chapter cases relate to the proceedings taken under Section 107 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner. The law in this regard is too well settled to be stated here. It is not permissible in law to rely upon such chapter cases for taking action under Section 56(1) (a) or (b) of the Act [see (See Bombay High Court Writ Petition No.949 of 1998 decided on 3rd August, 1987) LahuV/s. G.S. Thaker and (1987 (3) Bom. C.R. 370) NamdeoZipa Desale V/s. M.V. Chitale, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Kalyan & Anr.]. So, what we have here is a case where there is no other material, except for three crimes, legally referable to the petitioner and that material has been already found to be insufficient for basing the externment order on. This would make the first impugned order illegal. 12. The order of externment also does not state any grounds supporting the satisfaction recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Police that the witnesses are apprehensive about deposing against the petitioner in public. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Police has straightaway recorded conclusion in this regard without stating any reasons therefor. He ought to have made some mention about the material on the basis of which his conclusion has been drawn. The order of externment entails serious consequences for the fundamental freedoms of the person sought to be externed and, therefore, it must record proper reasons about the conclusions drawn therein against such a person. The principle of rule of law requires that every authority taking an action of depriving or restraining fundamental rights of the citizens or persons must confine itself within the permissible limits of law and must record reasons so that affected persons would know as to why the action was taken against him and would be able to resort to appropriate remedy if he feels aggrieved by it. Necessity of recording reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative power. Necessity of recording reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative power. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2010 ) 9 SCC 496) KrantiAssociates (P) Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. in para 47 (f) at page 510 has observed thus:- “(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.” These reasons must be clear, cogent and conveying application of mind. They should not be a mere apology of reasons. In the same case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 47(l) at page 511 clarified the position in the words:- “(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.” Any such order which lacks reasons is arbitrary and is anathema to the principles of rule of law and reasonableness that pervade Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. From the above discussion, it would be clear that the basic order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane on 18th February, 2013 is bad in law and has been passed in violation of natural justice. The said order cannot be sustained. The order of the appellate authority dated 16th May, 2013 also impugned herein, which confirms the first impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of law for same reasons and deserves to be quashed and set aside as well. So, we hereby quash and set aside both the impugned orders. 14. The writ petition is allowed accordingly and Rule is made absolute in the above terms.