JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of 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 the petitioner is resident of village Malunje, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar and is doing agricultural work for livelihood of his family. Respondent No.3 forwarded the proposal to the Respondent No.4 for externment of the petitioner from three districts i.e. Ahmednagar, Nashik and Pune districts. Thereafter on 17th January, 2017, the respondent no.4 issued notice to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 calling explanation from the petitioner why he should not be externed from the abovesaid three districts. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 25th January, 2017, the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice issued by respondent No.4 and contended that, the offences have been registered against the petitioner due to the political reasons. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that, after hearing both the sides and perusal of the documents placed on record, respondent No.4 – Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 31st January, 2017 allowed the externment proceedings and ordered to extern the petitioner from three districts i.e. Ahmednagar, Nashik and Pune. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, filed Externment Appeal No. 14/2017 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik on 20th February, 2017. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik after hearing the parties has passed the order on 13th April, 2017 thereby modifying the order dated 31st January, 2017 and thereafter externing the petitioner from only Ahmednagar district for one year. Hence this Criminal Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order in casual manner and without considering the documents placed on record, and has erroneously come to the conclusion that, the petitioner is required to be externed from Ahmednagar district. It is submitted that, respondent no.4 has not given the satisfactory reasons in the order of externment, as to why the petitioner needs to be externed from the three districts. In fact the offences are registered against the petitioner within the jurisdiction of Sangamner City Police Station, and Parner Police Station. It is submitted that, respondent no.4 has not given the satisfactory reasons in the order of externment, as to why the petitioner needs to be externed from the three districts. In fact the offences are registered against the petitioner within the jurisdiction of Sangamner City Police Station, and Parner Police Station. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no.4 is against the principles of natural justice and excessive, hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel submitted that, the respondent no.4 has not considered that, the offences registered against the petitioner are due to the political reasons and to take the revenge against the petitioner, hence the order passed by respondent no.4 is against the provisions of the law. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he pressed into service the exposition of law in the cases of Sanket Balkurshna Jadhav V/s State of Maharashtra and others 2013(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 655, Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan V/s Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai and other 2013 All MR (Cri) 122, Ravindra @ Ravi S/o Harisingh Jadhav V/s State of Maharashtra and another 2016(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 192 and Pappu @ Akhilesh Shivshankar Mishra V/s The State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition No.23 of 2016 along with connected matters, decided on 21.12.2016). Therefore, he submits that the Petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State relying upon the reasons assigned by respondent nos.2 and 4 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 the Ahmednagar District. 6. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State. With their able assistance carefully perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, and original record of the case maintained by the office of the respondents. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the show-cause notice sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner, to the petitioner, it appears that in the said notice as many as 5 offences have been mentioned and status of those offences is shown either pending for investigation or trial. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the show-cause notice sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner, to the petitioner, it appears that in the said notice as many as 5 offences have been mentioned and status of those offences is shown either pending for investigation or trial. All the offences have been registered at Sangamner and Parner Talukas of Ahmednagar district. 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. The petitioner has given reply to the said notice stating therein that the offences which have been shown at sr. nos.1 and 2 are lodged due to the political rivalry. The offence at sr. no.3 is lodged due to previous enmity, since earlier the petitioner has lodged the complaint against the family members of the complainant. It is stated in the said reply that, the offences registered at sr. nos. 4 and 5, which are in respect of theft of sand, have not been committed by him. He is successful bidder and in auction he has purchased the said quantity of sand, which is subject matter of offences mentioned at sr. nos.4 and 5. He submits that, the aforesaid offences are either under investigation or pending for trial. 7. We have carefully perused the proposal submitted by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4. In the said proposal three offences are shown registered at Sangamner Taluka Police Station, against the petitioner. So also it is shown that, two offences are registered at Parner Police Station. 8. The respondent no.4 has passed the order on 31st January, 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 the three Districts. In spite of specific reply by the petitioner that the offences which have been registered against the petitioner are under investigation by the Police or under trial, respondent no.4 without adverting to the said contention of the petitioner, proceeded to consider the proposal submitted by respondent no.3 on the basis that five offences have been registered against the petitioner and those are under an investigation. 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. Upon careful perusal of contents of the show-cause notice, it is nowhere 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. 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 AIR 1973 SC 630 , held that, proposed externee is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under Section 56, 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. Upon careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions, 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 clause (a). Upon careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions, 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 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 as provided in clause (b). 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 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. Keeping in view the above legal position, it was incumbent upon respondent no.4, 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 such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. 11. It also appears that, 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 Yeshwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkar, Dy. Commissioner of Police & another 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240 had occasion to consider the scope of provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] and [b] of the Bombay Police Act. It would be gainful to reproduce herein below para 3 of the said judgment: 3. Section 56 (i) of the Bombay Police Act visualizes 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. 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] 12. It appears that, the authorities have not made discussion in the impugned orders showing live link and proximity in between the initiation of externment proceedings by respondent nos.3 and 4, and the offences registered against the petitioner. It appears that some of the offences were registered in the year 2011 and 2012. 13. Upon careful perusal of the offences registered against the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that all offences have been registered at Sangamner and Parner Talukas, District Ahmednagar. Upon careful perusal of the discussion in the impugned order of respondent no.4, there are no specific reasons assigned for externment of the petitioner from Nashik and Pune Districts. 14. 13. Upon careful perusal of the offences registered against the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that all offences have been registered at Sangamner and Parner Talukas, District Ahmednagar. Upon careful perusal of the discussion in the impugned order of respondent no.4, there are no specific reasons assigned for externment of the petitioner from Nashik and Pune Districts. 14. Though the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.2 has restricted the implementation and operation of the order of externment passed by respondent no.4 from the boundaries of Ahmednagar District, nevertheless the Appellate Authority did not consider the procedural irregularities and illegalities committed by respondent no.4 while passing the impugned order, and also by respondent no.3 while initiating the proposal for externment of the petitioner from three Districts. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that, the impugned orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 4 cannot legally sustain, hence both the orders are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute on above terms. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.