Judgment : AnujaPrabhu Dessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the externment order No.37 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner Zone IV, Pune City under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”. 3. The externment order was preceded with notice dated 13.8.2013 issued by the Inquiry Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and filed his reply. The inquiry Officer forwarded the report to the Externing Authority for further action. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 externing the petitioner from Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years. 4. The petitioner filed Externment Appeal No. 156 of 2013 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dated 4.10.2013, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.2.2014. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition challenging the legal and constitutional validity of the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi has argued that the externment order stands vitiated for non compliance of provisions under Section 59 of the Act. He has submitted that the Externing Authority has not recorded satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to depose against the petitioner in public due to fear but has recorded that the people are not willing to depose against the petitioner, which learned Advocate Mr. Tiwari contends that the satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority is not the requirement of Section 59. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari has further submitted that the dates on which the in-camera statements were recorded is not mentioned in the notice. The statements relied upon by the Asst. Commissioner are vague and such statements could not have been relied upon. He contents that the Appellate Authority has not given any findings on these grounds though raised and the order of the Appellate Authority reflects total non application of mind. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Imtiyaz Afzal Hussain Shaikh V/s. Asst. He contents that the Appellate Authority has not given any findings on these grounds though raised and the order of the Appellate Authority reflects total non application of mind. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Imtiyaz Afzal Hussain Shaikh V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Police, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 443, and Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 630 . 7. Learned APP Ms. Kantharia has argued that the petitioner is involved in committing several serious crimes and that he had created terror in the minds of the witnesses, due to which they were not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. She has argued that the Externing Authority has recorded satisfaction that the members of the public/people are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner in public, which is effective compliance of Section 59 of the Act. Learned APP has submitted that there was sufficient material to extern the petitioner under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, and that the subjective satisfaction of the Authority cannot be interfered with. 8. We have perused the material placed before us and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner and the learned APP Mrs Kantharia for the State. 9. Section 56(1)(a)(b), authorizes the Externing Authority to extern any person involved in committing any one of the following activities: a) That the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property. b) That there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of offence involving force or violence; Or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII of 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 regard the safety of their person or property. 10. 10. Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act mandates that before passing of externment order the proposed externee shall be informed in writing of the general nature of the allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation, and on filing the application, permit him to examine witnesses, unless the authority is of the opinion that such application was vexatious or made to delay the proceedings. 11. In the case of PandharinathShridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police reported in AIR 1973 SC 630 , the Apex Court has held that: “... An order of externment can be passed under Clause (a) or (b) or 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 the safety of their person or property.” 12. In the case of YeshwantDamodar Patil vs. Hemant Karkare reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1111, this Court has held salgaonkar6 of 12 that: “5......(1) If action is proposed to be taken against him on the ground that the proposed externee is engaged or is, about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence, then he must be told so and he must also be informed that in the opinion of the officer witness are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him. (2) Similarly, if an action is proposed to be taken against the proposed externee on the ground that he is engaged or is likely to be engaged in commission of the offences punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, then he must be informed about the same and he must also necessarily be informed that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against him. (3) The fact that the proposed externee is engaged or is about to be engaged in one or the other type of an activity or movements in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, it not sufficient by itself to warrant an order of externment. (3) The fact that the proposed externee is engaged or is about to be engaged in one or the other type of an activity or movements in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, it not sufficient by itself to warrant an order of externment. The fact coupled with the opinion formed by the designated officer that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public for the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, we provide a proper basis for the exercise of the power of externment under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, in paragraph 9, the Division Bench held thus: 9. We have already, after examining the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, held that in every case of act involved on the part of the proposed externee, where an order of externment proposed to be passed it is necessary that the officer concerned must be satisfied that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him.” These principles have been reiterated by this Court in the case of ImtiazAfzal Hussain Shaikh v/s. Asst. Commissioner of Police reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 443. 13. Reverting to the facts of the present petitions, by notice under Section 59 of the Act, dated 13th August, 2013 the Asst. Commissioner had informed the petitioner that the Sr. Police Inspector had forwarded a proposal to extern him from Pune City and Pune District for two years. The said notice refers to two in-camera statements, and five crimes registered against the petitioner at Hadapsar Police Station. The notice further states that the discreet inquiry revealed that several people had become victims of his criminal activities and atrocities. The notice further states that due to the reign of terror created by him nobody was coming forward to complaint and give evidence against him in public. The petitioner was informed that his criminal activities had caused apprehension in the minds of the people as regards safety of heir person and property. The petitioner was informed that since his continued presence could give rise to serious crimes, the P.I. had proposed his externment from Pune City and Pune District for the period of two years. The petitioner was informed that his criminal activities had caused apprehension in the minds of the people as regards safety of heir person and property. The petitioner was informed that since his continued presence could give rise to serious crimes, the P.I. had proposed his externment from Pune City and Pune District for the period of two years. It was alleged that the activities of the petitioner constituted offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code. 14. By the externment order No.37/2013 dated 4.10.2013 the petitioner has been externed from Pune City and Pune District for two years. The externment order specifically states that petitioner is involved in assaulting, abusing and extorting money from the hawkers, businessmen and residents from Kalepadal, Malwadi, Sasane Nagar, Tukai Nagar and other adjoining areas within the jurisdiction of Hadapsar Police Station and that the Criminal Activities of the petitioner constitute offence under Chapter XVI of Indian Penal Code. The externing authority has recorded satisfaction that apart from the five crimes registered against him at Hadapsar Police Station, the petitioner is involved in committing several other offences but the same are not registered as the people from the said locality are not ready to lodge complaint against him due to the reign and terror created by him. 15. A perusal of the notice indicates that the Inquiry Officer had referred to two in-camera statements, wherein the witnesses had specified the dates as well as the place of the alleged incident. The said in-camera statements relate to be incidents which were committed on 23rd and 24th July, 2013. The notice under Section 59 was given within one month from the said prejudicial activities and the notice contains all material particulars in respect of the said activities. Hence, in our view, non-disclosure of the date on which the statements were recorded does not in any manner vitiate the externment proceedings. 16. The notice and the externment order spells out activities which constitute grounds under Clause (a) and (b) of Sub. Section (1) of Section 56(2) of the Act. However, neither the notice nor the order records satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. The notice merely states that the people are not ready to depose against the petitioner. This satisfaction is also restricted to the activities covered by first part of Clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act. However, neither the notice nor the order records satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. The notice merely states that the people are not ready to depose against the petitioner. This satisfaction is also restricted to the activities covered by first part of Clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act. No such satisfaction is recorded in respect of the activities constituting grounds under clause (a) and second part of Clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act. 17. The externment order does not make reference to in-camera statements spelt out in the notice. The Externment Order does not state that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose in public against the petitioner but states that many crimes committed by the petitioner have gone unreported as the people are not ready to lodge complaint against him. The said satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority does not meet the mandatory requirements of the Section 56 and the same is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yeshwant Patil (supra). In our view, failure of the Externing Authority to record subjective satisfaction as mandated by Section 56(1) of the Act vitiates the proceedings. 18. Under the circumstances and in view of discussion supra, we pass the following order: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Impugned Order of externment dated 4.10.2013 and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 13.2.2014, are quashed and set aside. iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.