JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged externment order passed by respondent no.1/Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.13 of 2017 and the order No.04 of 2017, dt.10.4.2017 passed by respondent no.3/Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone/Circle No.1, Nagpur. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a businessman running a hotel by name ‘Sahil Restaurant’ situated on Khadgaon Road, Wadi. He also possesses a godown, which he used to give on rent. The petitioner is subjected to false prosecution by Police Authorities merely on suspicion. 4. For the first time, a show cause notice u/s.59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was issued by the Assistant Police Commissioner, M.I.D.C. Division, Wadi, District Nagpur, on 15.3.2017 for action under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner went to the Office of respondent no.2 along with witnesses to furnish his explanation to the charges. However, respondent no.2 was not present. Petitioner time to time went to his Office, but he was not present. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before forming an opinion. 5. It is submitted that the following are four offences shown pending against the petitioner : Sr. No. Date of commission of offence Sections and Station Crime No. Status 1. 15.06.14 Sec.324, 34 of IPC, Police Station, Kalmeshwar 176/2014 Acquitted 2. 21.02.15 307, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Wadi 67/2015 Pending 3. 28.10.15 341, 324, 34 of IPC, Police Station, Wadi 278/2015 Pending 4. 29.09.15 364 (A), 386, 395, 397, 307, 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 25 of Arms Act and Section 135 of Mah. Police Act Arms Act, Police Station, Wadi 22/2016 Pending 6. It is submitted that the notice prima facie is illegal. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the offences. In one of the offences he is acquitted. Again notice was issued on 24.3.2017. In the said notice, incamera statements of witnesses were not mentioned. Petitioner had no opportunity to explain the show cause notice. The impugned order came to be passed on 10.4.2017. The impugned order also does not show about the incamera statements of witnesses. 7. In one of the offences he is acquitted. Again notice was issued on 24.3.2017. In the said notice, incamera statements of witnesses were not mentioned. Petitioner had no opportunity to explain the show cause notice. The impugned order came to be passed on 10.4.2017. The impugned order also does not show about the incamera statements of witnesses. 7. The impugned order dt.10.4.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.13 of 2017. The said appeal was dismissed on 3rd June, 2017, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. 8. It is submitted that the last offence shown against the petitioner is of the year 2016. The show cause notice is of the year 2017 and therefore, there is no live link. At last, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Heard Mr. A.B. Moon, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that in the show cause notice dt.24.3.2017, there is no reference of incamera statements. Therefore, petitioner had no any opportunity to give explanation. The impugned order also does not show any incamera statements nor the time and date of recording statements. 10. Learned Counsel has submitted that two offences are in respect of Police Station, Wadi and one offence is in respect of Police Station, Kalmeshwar. He is wrongly externed from whole Nagpur District for a period of one year. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has pointed out the following decisions : a. Anna s/o. Bhimrao Dhavale vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, 2017 AllMR(Cri) 2099. b. Bal @ Rajvardhan Vitthalrao Nimbalkar vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Others, 2016 AllMR(Cri) 3994. c. Rohit s/o. Ramesh Nalawade vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, 2017 AllMR(Cri) 3443. d. Kiran Ramrao Shinde vs. The SubDivisional Magistrate, Jath, 2016 AllMR(Cri) 3915. 11. Heard Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for Respondents/State. He has strongly supported the impugned order and submitted that presence of the petitioner is dangerous to the public. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order is rightly passed against the petitioner. At last, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Perused the impugned order and show cause notice dt.24.3.2017. He has strongly supported the impugned order and submitted that presence of the petitioner is dangerous to the public. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order is rightly passed against the petitioner. At last, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Perused the impugned order and show cause notice dt.24.3.2017. From perusal of the show cause notice and the impugned order, it is apparent that recording of incamera statements of the witnesses is not mentioned. General statement is made that the witnesses are not ready to come forward to give the statement. The chapter proceedings to prevent breach of peace were initiated against the petitioner and the last proceeding was of the year 2014, u/s.110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Last offence is shown of the year 2016 and notice is issued in the month of March, 2017. Therefore, there is no live link to show that there is possibility of committing like offences by the petitioner. 13. In the case of Bal @ Rajvardhan Vitthalrao Nimbalkar vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Others reported in 2016 AllMR(Cri) 3994, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that last offence registered against the petitioner was of the year 2013 and the show cause notice is issued in the year 2015. There is no live link between the offence committed and the action taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.” In the present case also, the last offence registered was in the year 2016. Notice was issued in the month of March, 2017. The impugned order does not show that there is any live link between the last offence and the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. Issue of live link is also taken into consideration in the case of Rohit s/o. Ramesh Nalawade vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2017 AllMR(Cri) 3443 by the Division Bench of this Court has held that the last offence was of the year 2011 and the proceedings were initiated in 2016 and therefore, there is no live link. 15. 15. In the case of Anna s/o. Bhimrao Dhavale vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2017 AllMR(Cri) 2099, the Division Bench of this Court held that- “statements of witnesses were not recorded to form opinion that they are not willing to give evidence in public due to fear of petitioner. Also it is not mentioned in the show cause notice as to on what date, time, and place the petitioner used force against the witnesses which created fear in their minds. If that be so, the petitioner could not get opportunity to challenge externment proceedings. In view of noncompliance of Section 56(1)(a)(b), the externment order is not sustainable in law.” In the present case also, the show cause notice as well as the impugned order does not show as to on what date, time and place the petitioner used force against the witnesses which created fear in their minds. The show cause notice dt.24.3.2017 and the impugned orders dt.10.4.2017 and 3.6.2017 do not show recording of any incamera statement. Therefore, in view of the above cited judgments, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. For the reasons stated above, we are inclined to allow the petition. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (I) of the petition, which reads as under : “(I) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2017, (Annexure-7) passed by Respondent No.1, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.13/2017, & order bearing No.04/2017 dated 10/04/2017, (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of police Zone/circle No.1, Nagpur against the Petitioner, view of above and to meet the ends of justice.” No order as to costs.