JUDGMENT : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral) Heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Advocate Shri Vyas has raised following contentions : (i) Though total six offences allegedly committed by applicant figured in show cause notice, after receipt of reply thereto from applicant, only two have been looked into in final order. (ii) On the strength of those two offences i.e. crime No.43/2014 and Crime No.220/2015 with incamera statements, the externment for period of two years was ordered by Dy, Commissioner of Police Zone – I, Nagpur City on 05/04/2016. Said order does not mention the dates or period of incamera statements so as to demonstrate its live link with the externment. (iii) When this order was questioned in statutory appeal before respondent No.1, it found that Crime No.43/2014 was registered against the brother of present applicant and therefore ignored it. However, it has maintained externment by relying upon involvement in four offences discarded by Original Authority. (iv) This exercise of accepting the rejected material has been undertaken without any opportunity to applicant. He further adds that so called incamera statements are not found relevant by the appellate authority. 3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that appeal before respondent No.1 is provided in statute and that authority has got same powers as that of original authority. It can therefore consider the entire material afresh and arrive at its own conclusion even by ignoring certain findings reached by original authority i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Police. In present matter, appellate authority has heard the applicant and thereafter found that his previous conduct manifest in first four crimes also constituted relevant material for the purpose of externment. Error of original authority in considering Crime No.43/2014 has been corrected and that crime has been deleted from consideration. However, because of previous conduct and the last Crime i.e. Crime No.220/2015, the externment has been maintained. She submits that as externment has been maintained, non-consideration of in camera statement by itself, is not fatal and order of appellate authority cannot be quashed on that ground. 4. After hearing respective counsel, we find that Dy. Commissioner of Police has, for reasons recorded by him, ignored first four offences and found Crime Nos.43/2014 and 220/2015 only relevant. If Crime No.43/2014 was committed by brother of applicant and applicant was not involved in it, consideration of that crime by Dy. 4. After hearing respective counsel, we find that Dy. Commissioner of Police has, for reasons recorded by him, ignored first four offences and found Crime Nos.43/2014 and 220/2015 only relevant. If Crime No.43/2014 was committed by brother of applicant and applicant was not involved in it, consideration of that crime by Dy. Commissioner of Police as relevant material stands vitiated. Non - Applicant No.1 as an appellate authority has corrected that error. It has mentioned Crime No.220/2015 only. However, consideration in appellate order does not show that only because of Crime No.220/2015, appellate authority was inclined to uphold the order of externment. It has relied upon first four offences which were discarded by Dy. Commissioner of Police. 5. Thus, material which lower authority found irrelevant has been considered by appellate authority to the prejudice of applicant. We feel that an opportunity to applicant or at least a notice that such a course is open, should have been given by the appellate authority. 6. Similarly, the appellate authority has not mentioned in - Camera statements at all. In order of externment, details like the month or period of incident in relation to which those in - Camera statements are recorded are lacking. Those details are essential to establish live link with the object sought to be achieved. As those dates are missing, the externing authority could not have looked into in - Camera statements if offences mentioned therein were stale. If appellate authority found that those instances were stale, appellate authority ought to have commented upon its use by the externing authority. In fact, appellate authority has not observed anything on relevance or otherwise of those in - Camera statements. 7. We, therefore, find that entire material looked into by Dy. Commissioner of Police as an externing authority has not been evaluated by appellate authority. Hence, without observing anything more, we quash and set aside the appellate order dated 20/09/2016 and restore proceedings back to file of respondent No.1. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 29/12/2016 and appellate authority shall attempt to pass fresh orders within six weeks thereafter. 9. Writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to cost. Petition Party Allowed.