JUDGMENT :- S.S. SHINDE, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned APP for State. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. By Filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, thereby quashing for the order of externment passed by Respondent no.2 herein on 27th September, 2012. 3. The leaned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the notice dated 9.4.2012, under the signature of Respondent no.2 was served upon them, calling upon them to show cause as to why they shall not be externed, they have submitted their explanation on 7.8.2012, clearly mentioning therein that out of 5 crimes under Indian Penal Code alleged to be pending against them, as mentioned in the notice dated 9.4.2012, in three cases, i.e. RCC No.705/2011 (State Vs. Zelsiongh and Ors.); RCC No.179/2010; and RCC No.3 16/2009 (State Vs. Roshansingh Bawari), they were acquitted by the competent court and that in remaining two cases, the petitioners were shown as accused in only one case and that was filed against them as a counterblast to the complaint, which they had filed against the complainant in the said case. Learned Counsel submitted that, Respondent no.2, however, ignoring the reply so submitted by the petitioners, mechanically passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel submitted that looking to the contents of the impugned order; it appears that the action directed in the said order was predetermined. Learned Counsel submitted that the reason, on the basis of which the externment of the petitioners was proposed, i.e. five IPC cases pending against them, was in fact not existing on the date of notice. In such circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, there was no reason to pass an order of externment against the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners challenged the impugned order by filing an appeal before the State Government. However, the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra also, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, mechanically confirmed the order passed by Respondent no.2. Learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Respondent no.2 has to be held illegal for one more reason that while passing the said order, Respondent no.1 has also taken into account Crime No. 213/2012 allegedly pending against the present petitioners, which was not the part and parcel of the show cause notice dated 9.4.2012. Learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Respondent no.2 has to be held illegal for one more reason that while passing the said order, Respondent no.1 has also taken into account Crime No. 213/2012 allegedly pending against the present petitioners, which was not the part and parcel of the show cause notice dated 9.4.2012. Without giving any opportunity to explain their case pertaining to the said Crime No.213/2012, Respondent no.1 has unilaterally taken a decision and passed adverse order against the petitioner No.2. Learned Counsel submitted that the orders passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in utter violation of principles of natural justice and hence deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned APP has supported the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Respondent no.1. He contended that the criminal record against the present petitioners has been taken into account by Respondent nos.1 and 2 and in the larger interest and keeping in view maintenance of law and order situation in Parbhani district, the petitioners have been rightly externed. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. We have carefully gone through the show cause notice dated 9.4.2012; reply/explanation submitted by the petitioners to the said notice and both the impugned orders respectively passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. From the order passed by Respondent no.2, it is apparent that the same has been passed without considering the fact that out of five IPC cases mentioned in the notice dated 9.4.2012, in three cases, the petitioners have been acquitted and in one case, they are not at accused and in the last case, wherein they have been shown as accused, is a counter case again them. Had Respondent no.2 even cursorily gone through the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioners on 7.8.2012, no such reference would have come in the impugned order that five IPC cases are pending against the petitioners. In fact, even when notice dated 9.4.2012 was issued; the IPC cases referred therein have been disposed of, even prior to that. When this fact was specifically brought to the notice of Respondent no.2 by the petitioners in their reply, no such reference was expected in the impugned order that the aforesaid cases are pending against the petitioners. In fact, even when notice dated 9.4.2012 was issued; the IPC cases referred therein have been disposed of, even prior to that. When this fact was specifically brought to the notice of Respondent no.2 by the petitioners in their reply, no such reference was expected in the impugned order that the aforesaid cases are pending against the petitioners. This fact alone is sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the said order was passed ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice. 8. In the case of Abdul Kadir Razzague Beg Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nasik and Ors. 1991 Cri.L.J. 1725, externment order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court only on the ground that the said order was passed totally ignoring the fact of acquittal of appellants of serious charges under Indian Penal Code by the court. It was held by this Court that the impugned orders were suffering from non-application of mind and hence they were liable to be set aside. In the instant case also, as has been discussed herein above, Respondent no.2, at the first instance and Respondent no. 1 thereafter have failed in taking into account the fact of acquittal of the petitioners from three cases arising out of the charges under Indian Penal Code by the Court. Secondly, as mentioned herein before, Crime No. 213/2012, which was not the part of the notice of externment dated 9.4.2012, could not have been used against the petitioners without providing them an opportunity to explain their case in that regard. Since the principles of natural justice seem to have not been followed by both the authorities, the only option before this court is to set aside the impugned orders. Accordingly, they are set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. Ordered accordingly.