JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I of Amravati City directing the petitioner to remove him self from the local limits of Amravati City and Amravati Rural for a period of two years from the date of actual removal from the said area. The externment order is based on conviction of the petitioner in session case arising out of Crime No.85 of 2009 of Nagpuri Gate Police Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Judge. It is stated in the show cause notice that despite conviction of the petitioner for the said offence, there was no improvement in his conduct. The competent authority has also stated in his order that there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner despite his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and despite the sentence of five years imposed on him. 5. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. What is contended before me by the learned counsel Mr. Navlani is that neither show cause notice nor externment order in any manner indicate as to what made the Enquiry Officer and the competent officer to come to a conclusion that there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. It is submitted that not a single incident has been described either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order to show that the applicant has not improved his behaviour. It is contended by Mr. Navlani that the order, therefore, suffers from serious infirmity. Such a show cause notice which does not contain any data to indicate as to how the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner was not sufficient to enable the petitioner to defend his case effectively before the competent officer under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. 6. Such a show cause notice which does not contain any data to indicate as to how the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that there was no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner was not sufficient to enable the petitioner to defend his case effectively before the competent officer under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. 6. In my considered opinion, if a person is to be externed under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act on the grounds mentioned in either of the clauses of subsection (1) of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act the facts which laid the enquiry officer and the competent officer to believe that the said person was again likely to engage himself in commission of an offence similar to that for which he has been convicted shall be stated in the show cause notice as well as• in the externment order. In the present case, neither report of the enquiry officer nor the externment order contain any statement of facts which laid the Enquiry Officer and Externment Officer to believe that the petitioner was again likely to engage himself in commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or similar offence against human body. As such, the order suffers from serious infirmities and cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th October, 2012 passed under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act externing the petitioner for a period of two years is quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. In view above judgment Criminal Application No. 171 of 2012 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.