JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with consent of the parties. 2. At the outset, we constrained to observe that, in spite of sufficient time granted to the respondents, the original record pertains to the case of the petitioner in relation to the externment was not made available for perusal, we express displeasure and direct respondent No. 1, to cause enquiry of respondents Nos. 2 and submit report to this Court within two months from today. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds; firstly, the alleged activities of the petitioner are confined to the Newasa town and even the offences are registered at Newasa Police Station, and therefore, there was no reason for respondent No. 2 to extern the petitioner from the entire Ahmednagar District. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat in the case of Sanket Balkurshna Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2013 All MR (Cri.) 3834 and in particular para 10 thereof. 4. Secondly, he submits that the mandate of the provisions of Section 156 (1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act is not adhered to by respondent No. 2, inasmuch as, neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2, there is a reference of recording in-camera statements of the witnesses by him so as to arrive at subjective satisfaction 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 and property. He submits that in absence of such exercise by respondent No. 2 to record in-camera statements of the witnesses and refer the same in the show cause notice and also discuss about their versions in the impugned judgment so as to form 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 and property. In absence of such exercise an order of externment cannot legally sustain. In support of aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the exposition of law in the case of Yeshwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemant Karkar, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1989 (3) Bom. In absence of such exercise an order of externment cannot legally sustain. In support of aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the exposition of law in the case of Yeshwant Damodar Patil vs. Hemant Karkar, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1989 (3) Bom. C.R. 240 and in particular paras 3 and 9. He, therefore, submits that petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned APP relying upon the contents of the show cause notice and the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned decisions submits that the alleged movements and acts of the petitioner were causing alarm, danger and harm to person of the citizens at Newasa and adjoining area of Newasa Taluka, as same is evident from the number of offences registered against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was constrained to initiate an externment proceeding against the petitioner. He submits that since the offences registered against the petitioner would be covered under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, the authority thought it fit to initiate proceedings of the externment of the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 2, which is confirmed by respondent No. 3 needs no interference under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings in the petition and grounds taken therein, contents of the show cause notice and also the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned judgments and we are of the opinion that petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons stated herein-below. 7. Firstly, there is no discussion in the impugned judgments of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that, there is live link between initiation of an externment proceeding against the petitioner and the offences i.e. Crime Nos. 19 of 2011, 212 of 2011, 126 of 2013 registered against him in Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar. 8. Secondly, if the alleged movements or acts of the petitioner, as stated in show cause notice and also in the discussion of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their judgments, are carefully perused, those are confined to the Newasa town and adjoining villages in said Taluka. 9. 8. Secondly, if the alleged movements or acts of the petitioner, as stated in show cause notice and also in the discussion of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their judgments, are carefully perused, those are confined to the Newasa town and adjoining villages in said Taluka. 9. Thirdly, there is no reference either in the show cause notice or in the impugned judgment of respondent No. 2, that before initiating externment proceeding against petitioner, as a matter of fact, respondent No. 2 recorded in-camera statements of the persons residing at Newasa or nearby Newasa town so as to reach at subjective satisfaction and 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 and property. In the case of Yeshwant (supra), while considering the scope and purport of section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, in paras 3 and 9 of the judgment it is held thus: “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. 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. 9. We have already, after examining the provisions of section 56(i) of the Bombay Police Act, held that in every case of acts involved on the part of the proposed externee, where an order of externment in proposed to be passed, it is necessary that the officer concerned must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him. Notice of such satisfaction must also necessarily be given to the proposed externee under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the present case, though notice of the fact that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the proposed externee has been given in so far as the ground mentioned in the first part of Clause (b) of section 56(i) is concerned, no such notice has been given is so far as the ground mentioned in the second part of section 56(i)(b) in concerned. In other words, when the authority proceeded to give notice to the proposed externee on the ground that he is engaged in, the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, he failed to mention also that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him.” (Underlines added) 10. We have made pointed query to the learned APP, whether there is reference in the show cause notice or in the impugned judgment of respondent No. 2, about recording of in-camera statements of witnesses, he fairly conceded that, neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned judgment of respondent No. 2 there is reference of recording of in-camera statements of the witnesses by respondent No. 2. 11. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the impugned orders passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot legally sustain and consequently needs to be set aside. Accordingly writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 12. 11. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the impugned orders passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot legally sustain and consequently needs to be set aside. Accordingly writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 12. List the matter for compliance of directions contained in paragraph no. 1 of this order.