JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The background facts for filing the present Petition as disclosed in the Memo of the Petition, in brief, are as under: It is the case of the Petitioner that on 1st September, 2016 he received the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act of 1951"). In all 15 offences alleged to have been registered against the Petitioner and that has been made basis for proposed externment. On 17th March, 2017, the Petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice and submitted that out of 15 offences, he has been already acquitted in 11 offences, in 2 offences the charge sheet is not yet filed and in 2 offences the trial is yet to commence. On 25th April, 2017, Respondent No.5 passed an order thereby externing the Petitioner from Ahmednagar, Pune and two Talukas of Aurangabad District for two years. On 14th June, 2017, the Petitioner filed appeal against the order of Respondent No.5 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur to Respondent No. 6 the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. The appeal was dismissed and the externment order is confirmed. It is the case of the Petitioner that admittedly he had no criminal antecedents in Aurangabad District and as such the order externing the Petitioner from Aurangabad is excessive and thus needs to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, referring to the written notes of arguments, submits that though the offences currently pending against the Petitioner are only registered either in Shrirampur Police Station or Deccan Police Station, Pune, the Petitioner has been externed from Ahmednagar District, Pune District and Gangapur and Vaijapur Talukas of Aurangabad District. It is submitted that out of the offences, the proximate link can be drawn at best to the offences being 126 and 130 of 2016 registered at Shrirampur Police Station on 8th May, 2016. The said offences are filed against 200-300 persons and relate to rioting whereas on the date of commission of offence, the Petitioner was attending a wedding ceremony of a relative at Aurangabad, which is also mentioned in the order granting anticipatory bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur on 27th May, 2016. The said offences are filed against 200-300 persons and relate to rioting whereas on the date of commission of offence, the Petitioner was attending a wedding ceremony of a relative at Aurangabad, which is also mentioned in the order granting anticipatory bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur on 27th May, 2016. It is submitted that the externment order is excessive in nature in as much as it externs the Petitioner from two Districts and two Talukas of third District, totaling an area of about 35,000 sq. km. with full knowledge that the proximate offences pending prosecution against the Petitioner are all registered only in Shrirampur city police station. Learned counsel submitted that the order of externment if extend to areas beyond which the offence is filed, must be accompanied by necessary justification, in absence of which the entire order of externment is liable to be quashed. In support of the said submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekr vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, the State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 630, Umar Mohamed Malbari vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and another 1988 Mh.L.J. 1034, Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and others 2013, All M.R.(Cri.) 122. The learned counsel, in support of her submissions, also placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Sachin s/o Kantilal Nirpagare vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.1492 of 2015) decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, on 7th January, 2016, in the case of Santosh Dattatraya Naik vs. the Divisional Commissioner and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.1034 of 2016) decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 7th February, 2017, and in the case of Bapu alias Suhas Sopan Davange vs. the Divisional Commissioner and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.1035 of 2016) decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 19th December, 2016. Learned counsel submitted that there is no reason mentioned in the order to extern the Petitioner from the entire District of Ahmednagar, Pune and two Talukas of Aurangabad District other than a passing reference to the fact that the said area is contiguous. It is submitted that this Court in the matter of Balu Shivling Dombe vs. the Divisional Magistrate Pandharpur and another 1969 Mh. It is submitted that this Court in the matter of Balu Shivling Dombe vs. the Divisional Magistrate Pandharpur and another 1969 Mh. L.J. 387, more particularly in Paragraph 11 thereof, has made an observation that the entire State of Maharashtra is contiguous in nature and this in itself does not count as a reasonable justification of externment beyond place of offence. The learned counsel further submitted that once the externment order is found to be excessive or passed without application of mind or relying on irrelevant material, the Court is only empowered to quash the said order, it cannot modify the order or quash it in part. In support of her said submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Yasinkhan Masumkhan Multani vs. the State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 2015 All M.R. (Cri) 1467. The learned counsel submitted that the pending offences against the Petitioner as on the date of show-cause notice are : 3057 of 2006 in Manmad Police Station, 168 of 2012 and 09 of 2012 in Deccan Police Station, 126 of 2016 in Shrirampur police station, 130 of 2016 in Shrirampur police station. It is submitted that externment is a remedy to be used to maintain peace and security in an area, and as it makes serious inroads in the personal liberty and is a type of preventive detention, it must be used very sparingly and only on strict compliance of procedure as mentioned in Section 56 and 59 of the Act of 1951. It is submitted that the first two pending offences were ten and four years old respectively, and in any case not at all proximate to the filing of the FIR. The said offences cannot be relied upon in issuing order of externment. It is further submitted that only such offences wherein there is any proximate connection to show a threat to the witnesses or to disturb the peace and security of an area, are to be considered and not stale or remote offences. In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre vs. the State of Maharashtra 2013 All M.R.(Cri) 1646, Sayeed Firoz Sayeed Noor vs. State of Maharashtra 2016(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)270. In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre vs. the State of Maharashtra 2013 All M.R.(Cri) 1646, Sayeed Firoz Sayeed Noor vs. State of Maharashtra 2016(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)270. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, though preliminary enquiry was conducted, the show-cause notice has enlisted 15 offences, out of which in 11 offences the Petitioner was already acquitted, whereas no mention was made of the allegation regarding pressurizing of witnesses. The impugned show-cause notice is cryptic without assigning the material allegations against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the material allegations against the proposed externee shall be necessarily mentioned in the show-cause notice. In support of said submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the following cases: Yashwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemand Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and another 1989 Mh.L.J. 1111, Bilal Gulam Rasul Patel vs. Divisional Magistrate 2014 All M.R.(Cri) 2161, Iqbaluddin Ziauddin Pirzade vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2015(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 464. In support of other submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel also placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Police and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.1784 of 2015) decided on 21st June, 2016, by the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat, in the case of Santosh Dattatraya Naik vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Criminal Writ Petition No.1034 of 2016) decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 7th February 2017, and in the case of Bapu alias Suhas Sopan Devange vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2016) decided on 19th December, 2016, by the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. At the cost of repetition, learned counsel submitted that despite the detailed reply filed by the Petitioner and submissions made before the authority, the authority while passing the externment order has relied upon certain offences as pending against the Petitioner, whereas the same were prosecuted and the Petitioner was acquitted in 11 out of 15 offences mentioned in the show-cause notice, as on the date of show-cause notice itself. Therefore, the counsel submits that the Petition may be allowed. 4. Therefore, the counsel submits that the Petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent State relying upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply and the reasons assigned by Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the impugned orders, submits that the authorities, after adhering to the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951, have rightly externed the Petitioner from the boundaries of Ahmednagar District, Pune District and two Talukas i.e. Gangapur and Vaijapur of Aurangabad District. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent – State at length. With their able assistance we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, reply filed by the Respondents, and original record of the case maintained by the office of the Respondents. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the show-cause notice issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur to the Petitioner, it appears that in the said notice as many as 15 offences have been mentioned. The offences at Serial Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 11 to 14 have been registered at Shrirampur City Police Station, the offence at Serial No.7 has been registered with Bhiwandi Police Station, the offence at Serial No.8 has been registered with Manmad Police Station, the offence at Serial No.10 has been registered with Newasa Police Station and offence at Serial No.15 has been registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune. In the said notice, it is not mentioned that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the Petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. 6. The Petitioner has given reply to the said notice stating therein that he stands acquitted from 11 offences, which are mentioned at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, of the offences in the show cause notice. It is also stated that there were 15 offences registered against him and only 4 offences are pending, and in remaining 11 offences he stands acquitted. We have carefully perused the proposal submitted by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 on 31st August, 2016. It is also stated that there were 15 offences registered against him and only 4 offences are pending, and in remaining 11 offences he stands acquitted. We have carefully perused the proposal submitted by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 on 31st August, 2016. In the said proposal also 11 offences registered at Shrirampur City Police Station, and one offence each registered at Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Mandmad Police Station, Newasa Police Station and Deccan Police Station, Pune against the Petitioner are shown. In the said proposal, it is stated that out of the said 15 offences registered against the Petitioner, 5 offences are pending in the Court and in 2 offences investigation is being carried out. It is stated in the said proposal that in camera statement of the witnesses have been recorded and their signatures are taken. There is also reference to the contents of the said statement in the said proposal. There is also reference that the Petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice issued by Respondent No.3, and it was recommended that the Petitioner should be externed from the boundaries of Ahmednagar District, Pune District and two talukas i.e. Gangapur and Vaijapur of Aurangabad District. 7. Respondent No.5 passed the order on 25th April, 2017. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the said order, there is reference of Section 56 [1] [a] [b] of the Act of 1951, and also to the proposal submitted by Respondent No.3 with recommendation for externing the Petitioner from two Districts and two Talukas of one District. Inspite of specific reply by the Petitioner that before initiating an externment proceedings, he has been acquitted from 11 offences which are mentioned in the show cause notice, Respondent No.5 without adverting to the said contention of the Petitioner, proceeded to consider the proposal submitted by Respondent No.3 on the basis that out of 15 offences, the Petitioner is acquitted only from 6 offences and other offences are pending. It shows complete non-application of mind to the facts of the case by Respondent No.5. It is mentioned in the said order that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose or to give complaint against the Petitioner due to his fear. It is mentioned that the Police Inspector of Police Station, Shrirampur has recorded in camera statements of such witnesses and those are kept in sealed envelope. 8. It is mentioned in the said order that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose or to give complaint against the Petitioner due to his fear. It is mentioned that the Police Inspector of Police Station, Shrirampur has recorded in camera statements of such witnesses and those are kept in sealed envelope. 8. In the first place in the show cause notice there is no mention that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the Petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. It is true that it is not expected from the authority that the names of such witnesses or date of such incident or other material particulars should be mentioned in the show cause notice. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra, supra held that, proposed externee is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under Section 56 of the Act of 1951, to know the material allegations against him and general nature of those allegations. 9. At this juncture, it would be apt to make reference to the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951, which reads thus: "56. Removal of persons about to commit offence (1) .... (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 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 regards the safety of their person or property, or ...." [Underlines are added] 10. Considering the aforesaid provisions carefully, an order of externment can be passed against a person whose movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property as provided in sub-clause (a) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. Considering the aforesaid provisions carefully, an order of externment can be passed against a person whose movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property as provided in sub-clause (a) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence as provided in clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. An order of externment can also be passed against a person if that person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, or Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. But in addition to the above, the concerned Officer, who is dealing with an externment proceedings, should be of the opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. 11. Keeping in view the above legal position, it was incumbent upon Respondent No.5, who dealt with an externment proceedings, to arrive at the opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against Petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. It appears that in the present case the Police Inspector appears to have recorded in camera statements of the witnesses. 12. Though there is reference of recording in camera statements of the witnesses by Respondent No. 3 in the impugned order, however, as already discussed there is no reference of recording in camera statements of the witnesses in the show cause notice. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [at Principal seat] in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkare, Dy. Commissioner of Police & another, supra had occasion to consider the scope of provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] and [b] of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It would be gainful to reproduce herein below para 3 of the said Judgment: 3. Hemant Karkare, Dy. Commissioner of Police & another, supra had occasion to consider the scope of provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] and [b] of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It would be gainful to reproduce herein below para 3 of the said Judgment: 3. Section 56 (i) of the Bombay Police Act visualises three situations in which the order of externment could be passed by the designated officer. We will, however, ignore, for the purpose of the disposal of this petition the third type of situation and only analyse the two situations which are covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of section 56 (i) of the Act. An order of externment can be passed against a person whose movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. That is what is provided in clause (a). The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence. It is so provided in the first part of clause (b) of section 56 (i) of the Act. An order of externment can also be passed against a person if that person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, of Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. This is so provided in the latter part of clause (b) of section 56 (i) of the Act. But it is not enough that these conditions alone are satisfied. In addition to this the designated officer should be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. [Underlines added] 13. It appears that there is no live link and proximity in between the initiation of externment proceedings by Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and the offences registered against the Petitioner. It appears that some of the offences were registered in the year 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006 and 2009, etc. [Underlines added] 13. It appears that there is no live link and proximity in between the initiation of externment proceedings by Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and the offences registered against the Petitioner. It appears that some of the offences were registered in the year 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006 and 2009, etc. As already observed, the authorities have also not considered that the Petitioner stood acquitted from 11 offences by the Competent Court even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. 14. Upon careful perusal of the offences registered against the Petitioner, it is abundantly clear that 11 offences have been registered at Shrirampur City Police Station, Shrirampur, District Osmanabad, one offence at Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station, Dist-Thane, one offence at Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar and one offence at Deccan Police Station, Pune. As already observed out of 15 offences mentioned in the show-cause notice, from 11 offences the Petitioner is acquitted by the competent Court, including the the offences registered at Bhiwandi Taluka police station and Newasa police station. 15. The Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.6 has confirmed the order of externment passed by Respondent No.5 externing the Petitioner from the boundaries of Ahmednagar District, Pune District and two Talukas of Aurangabad District i.e. Gangapur and Vaijapur. The Appellate Authority did not consider the procedural irregularities and illegalities committed by Respondent No. 5 while passing the impugned order, and also by Respondent No.3 while initiating and dealing the proposal for externment of the Petitioner from two Districts and two Talukas of third District. 16. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that, the impugned orders passed by Respondent nos.5 and 6 cannot legally sustain. Hence impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause "(C)". The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.