JUDGMENT : M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondent-State. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in appeal bearing Outward No. 2019/GA/Po-1/Externment-2/CR-40 whereby the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latur in Case No. 2019/MAG/CR-04 dated 30.03.2019 has been confirmed. 3. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is the resident of Latur. On 21.02.2019, Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur issued a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 stating therein that Police Inspector, Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur submitted a proposal for the externment of the petitioner on the ground that following offences are pending against the petitioner:- S. No. Police Station Crime No. Sections 1 Gandhi Chowk 212/10 376, 363, 366, 342, 504, 506, 34 2 Gandhi Chowk 235/11 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 135 3 Gandhi Chowk 251/11 324, 323, 504, 506, 135 4 MIDC 188/12 324, 323, 147, 148, 149 5 Gandhi Chowk 31/13 394, 397 6 Gandhi Chowk 93/16 326, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 25(1) of Arms Act 7 MIDC 70/16 394, 506 8 Gandhi Chowk 329/16 324, 323, 504, 506, 34 9 Vivekanand Chowk 77/18 326, 324, 504, 506, 34 10 Gandhi Chowk 121/18 326, 323, 504 34 4. The show cause notice further stated that Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It is further alleged in the show cause notice that serious offences against human body detailed above have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is a hardened criminal. He has created an atmosphere of terror in the jurisdiction of Vivekanad Chowk Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Police Station and MIDC Police Station, Latur. The notice further states that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the offence of robbery at the point of knife. It is further alleged that the petitioner is accused of indecent behaviour towards women, therefore, witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner. The notice further states that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the offence of robbery at the point of knife. It is further alleged that the petitioner is accused of indecent behaviour towards women, therefore, witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner. Because of the atmosphere of terror and fear created by the petitioner, there is a danger to the lives and properties of the citizens. Therefore to curtail the activities of the petitioner and to maintain peace in the society, the petitioner is proposed to be externed from the districts of Latur, Beed and Osmanabad for a period of two years. He was, accordingly, called upon to explain as to why the petitioner should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Latur, Beed and Osmanabad. 5. The petitioner replied to this notice. He contended in the said reply that offences have been registered against him on false complaints. The petitioner has no connection with these offences. He has further contended that he has to remain present before the Court on the dates fixed in the cases detailed above. He further contended that his wife, his children and parents are dependent upon him. He is the only bread winter in the family. If he is externed from these three districts, the persons dependent on him will be on streets. He has, therefore, prayed for the withdrawal of the notice. This reply was given on 01.03.2019. Again on 19.03.2019 another notice was issued to the petitioner stating therein that Sub-Divisional Officer has completed the inquiry and submitted the report dated 11.03.2019 and he has proposed to extern the petitioner from the district of Latur for a period of two years. 6. The petitioner replied to this notice by his reply dated 23.03.2019 and repeated the same contentions which he had raised in the reply dated 01.03.2019. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order dated 30.03.2019 in proceeding no. 2019/MAG/CR-04 and externed the petitioner for a period of one year from the teritorial limits of Latur district. The respondent no. 6. The petitioner replied to this notice by his reply dated 23.03.2019 and repeated the same contentions which he had raised in the reply dated 01.03.2019. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order dated 30.03.2019 in proceeding no. 2019/MAG/CR-04 and externed the petitioner for a period of one year from the teritorial limits of Latur district. The respondent no. 2 held that about ten offences have been registered against the petitioner, out of them some are under Section 376 i.e. rape, one offence is under Section 326 of the I.P.C. i.e. causing grievous hurt and one offence is under Section 394 i.e. robbbery and other two offences are under Section 324 of the I.P.C. It is further observed in the order of respondent no. 2 that petitioner’s criminal activities have created atmosphere of terror in the jurisdiction of Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur. Therefore, there is danger to the lives and properties of the citizens. The petitioner is a hardened criminal and therefore, the petitioner has been externed for a period of one year from Latur district. 7. The petitioner assailed this order before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in proceeding Outward No. 2019/GA/Po.1/ Externment-2/CR-40 dated 27.08.2019 confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-respondent no. 2 dated 30.03.2019. 8. The learned Divisional Commissioner-respondent no. 1 held that the petitioner claimed that he was acquitted in Crime Nos.212 of 2010, 235 of 2011, but the petitioner has not produced copies of judgment in those cases. This order is impugned in this petition. 9. Heard Shri Solanke, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.V. Dasalkar, the learned APP for the State. 10. Shri Solanke submitted that ten cases are pending against the petitioner. However the petitioner has been acquitted of some of the offences. Despite this, the respondent no. 1. refused to take in to consideration these developments. He submitted that the activities of the petitioner are alleged to be restricted only to Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Police Station and MIDC Police Station, Latur but he has been externed from the entire Latur district. This order is therefore against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o Sopan Gite vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (6) Laws (Bom) 163. 11. Shri Dasalkar the learned APP for the State submitted that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence regarding his acquittal. This order is therefore against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o Sopan Gite vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (6) Laws (Bom) 163. 11. Shri Dasalkar the learned APP for the State submitted that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence regarding his acquittal. He has supported the order of the Divisional Commissioner-respondent no. 1. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been acquitted in Crime Nos. 212 of 2010 and 235 of 2011. The petitioner has produced copies of judgment of both the crimes in which the petitioner has been acquitted. In Crime No. 235 of 2011 (under Section 324, 323, 147, 148, 149 of the I.P.C.) the petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment and order of Juvenile Court dated 15.09.2017. In Crime No. 212 of 2010 (under Section 376, 363, 366, 342, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.) the petitioner has been acquitted by the Juvenile Court by its order dated 18.02.2017. Notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act was given on 21.02.2019. The dates of acquittal in the aforeasaid Crime Nos.212 of 2010 and 235 of 2011 show that before this proposal could be initiated the petitioner was already acquitted. This clearly shows that the crimes in which the petitioner has been acquitted have been considered by the externing authority for externing the petitioner. This is clearly an illegality. The externing authority cannot consider the crimes in which the petitioner has been acquitted. The order of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 clearly indicate that other offences are pending for decision before the Court. In the case of Dnyaneshwar cited (supra) it has been held that registration of crime only cannot give ground for passing the order of externment. 13. The material produced before the externing authority is detailed in the show cause notice i.e. ten cases pending in the Court pertaining to Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Police Station and MIDC Police Station of Latur. On perusing the record of the externing authority (respondent no. 13. The material produced before the externing authority is detailed in the show cause notice i.e. ten cases pending in the Court pertaining to Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Police Station and MIDC Police Station of Latur. On perusing the record of the externing authority (respondent no. 2) in Case No. 2019/MAG/CR-04 it is seen that externing authority has considered following FIR:- S. No. Police Station Crime No. Sections 1 Gandhi Chowk 212/10 376, 363, 366, 342, 504, 506, 34 2 Gandhi Chowk 235/11 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 135 3 Gandhi Chowk 251/11 324, 323, 504, 506, 135 4 MIDC 188/12 324, 323, 147, 148, 149 5 MIDC 70/16 394, 506 6 Vivekanand Chowk 77/18 326, 324, 504, 506, 34 14. This shows that F.I.R. in Crime Nos. 212 of 2010 and 235 of 2011 were considered by the externing authority when the petitioner has been acquitted even before proposal for externing the petitioner was moved. In F.I.R. No. 77 of 2018 the allegations were that the petitioner had beaten the brother of the informant as the brother did not give mobile to the petitioner. When the informant went to the rescue of his brother the petitioner stabbed him in the abdomen. In F.I.R. No. 188 of 2012 the allegations are that the informant banged on one Mithun Gaikwad. The informant tendered apology to the said Mithun Gaikwad. The said Mithun Gaikwad started beating the informant. He was beaten by means of sword and dagger and others beat him with stones. In this F.I.R. the name of the petitioner does not appear. This incident took place on 31.12.2012. In F.I.R. No. 70 of 2016 the allegations made were that the informant was proceeding towards the house on a two wheeler. The informant was talking on phone while riding the motorcycle. At that time two unknown persons came on the motorcycle and intercepted the two wheeler of the informant slapped him and robbed him of two finger rings of five tolas each, two rings of white and yellow stones of the value of Rs. 100/- to 200/- and mobile handset of Rs. 1200/-. The name of the petitioner does not appear in this F.I.R. Notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act does not make any reference of F.I.R. No. 141 of 2018. 15. 100/- to 200/- and mobile handset of Rs. 1200/-. The name of the petitioner does not appear in this F.I.R. Notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act does not make any reference of F.I.R. No. 141 of 2018. 15. In F.I.R. No. 251 of 2011 the allegations are that on 26.11.2011 at 9.00 pm he heard commotion. When he saw from the upper floor of his house he noticed that the brother of the informant Rohan Manjre was being beaten by the petitioner and Ashruba Londhe, Guru Subhash Kale, Baba Dilip Sawant and Satish Patole. When he asked these persons as to why they were beating his brother thereupon Ashruba Londhe picked up a stone and delivered a blow of it on the head of the informant. No overt act except vaguely mentioning that the brother of the informant was being beaten by the petitioner and others, is alleged in the F.I.R. 16. This clealry shows that out of ten F.I.Rs six F.I.Rs were produced before the externing authority. Out of them in the two F.I.Rs the petitioner has been acquitted. In two F.I.Rs name of the petitioner does not appear. On the basis of this material the petitioner has been externed. It cannot be said that this material was enough for externing the petitioner out of Latur disrtrict. Morever all these offences/cases are pending before the Court. Thus, the material discussed above does not indicate that the material was sufficient for the externing authority-respondent no. 2 to extern the petitioner from entire Latur district. 17. Now, the question is where the activities are restricted to a particular area, but the order of externment pertains to the entire district or even beyond the local jurisdiction of the district is legal. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. The questions referred to the Full Bench were as under:- “1. 17. Now, the question is where the activities are restricted to a particular area, but the order of externment pertains to the entire district or even beyond the local jurisdiction of the district is legal. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. The questions referred to the Full Bench were as under:- “1. Where the activities of externee are confined to specific area of the local limits of the jurisdiction of a police station in a district but the order of externment extends to the entire district, rural areas and even beyond the district or districts (irrespective of the fact that it is contiguous or not) whether such an order needs to show the existence of material:- (a) that a larger or additional area so chosen or selected is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common means of transport and communication system. (b) that the facts or the material warranting externment from a larger or additional area or neighbouring area exist. (c) that the externing authority has applied its mind to the factors (a) and (b) while passing an order of externment?” The Full Bench in the case of Sumit S/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2017 of this Court answered this question as under: “26. The discussion made so far would lead us to record our conclusions as follows: (i) The externment order directing externment of a person from a much larger area than the one of his illegal activities, must be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction regarding the need for externing a person to an expansive area though it may not always directly or elaborately refer to that material in the order itself, as it all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case which need be vetted through the judicial process of drawing of legitimate inference following the law of Pandharinath and Sanjeev @ Brittoo (supra). (ii) The order of externment need not necessarily refer to the details of the material considered by it so as to show independently that larger or additional area chosen by it is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common means of transport and communication. (iii) Application of mind to the material present on record by the authority passing the externment order is necessary, but any reflection of application of mind in the externment order in a specific manner, as if to pass a reasoned order, would not be necessary. It would be enough if the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by considering the material available on record and it would and should be a matter of legitimate inference that the authority, while considering materials to satisfy itself about the need for and extent of externment to be ordered, also considered all the options available to it and selected in it's wisdom the one which it thought to be most appropriate. This would also mean that authority, in this way, can select a larger area for being covered under it's externment order, as one of the options available to it, whether such larger area has within it contiguous or inter-connected or intimately connected pockets of areas or not.” In Para 24 and 25 the Full Bench observed as under: “24. A combined reading of the principles of law laid down in all the aforesaid cases would show that ordinarily the externment order be restricted to the area of illegal activity of externee. In a given case, the order can be capacious which would include more area than the actual field of the illegal activities of the externee so as to shake the externee off his roots and this may be so necessary in a particular case for achieving the object of externment order. While making such an expansive order, sufficient leeway has been granted to the officer and it includes the power conferred under amended provision of Section 56 of the Act, 1951 to remove a person from a much bigger area than the area of his actual activity and such a larger area may not necessarily be contiguous to the area of illegal activities or may not be falling within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer. But, this discretion is always subject to the limits drawn by the Wednesbury triad of unreasonableness, already elaborated upon in the previous paragraphs. 25. Thus, we can now reasonably say that although the officer is having the discretion to extern a person from a much larger area, the discretion is neither unfettered nor un-canalized nor unrestricted. The discretion is rather guided by the sound principles of judicial review of administrative action or statutory discretion which have now been called the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness. That would mean that an externment order must be based upon some material, that it must refer to some material on record, and if that is done, the requirements of law are met and the judicial review would go no further to examine sufficiency or otherwise of such material. In a given case, it may also happen that the externment order does not refer to some material on record. Still, the externment order could be seen as unassailable. Such possibility would arise when the situation of surrounding areas is such as to give rise to an impression upon taking of judicial notice of the situation that these areas are contiguous or adjacent to each other or inter-connected with each other through the improved means of transport and communication warranting externment of a person from a larger area in order to sweep the person off his moorings, just to make the order of externment effective and practicable, as held in Pandharinath (supra). But, some time the facts and circumstances may not be so self-speaking and in such a case, no judicial notice could possibly be taken. It is in such a case, there would be need for the externment order to refer to some material on record, though not eloquently, and if that is done, the externment order would clear the validity test of Wednesbury doctrine. Once such reference to some material on record is seen, the judicial review has to stop as no further enquiry into sufficiency or otherwise of the material to pass a spacious externment order is permissible. Once such reference to some material on record is seen, the judicial review has to stop as no further enquiry into sufficiency or otherwise of the material to pass a spacious externment order is permissible. This is on account of the cardinal principle of judicial review that when exercise of discretion is questioned as being arbitrary, a secondary reviewing Court, a High Court examining the challenge on the ground of arbitrariness of administrative action or statutory discretion would be a secondary court of review unlike in a situation where it considers the challenge based on grounds of inequality and discrimination when it turns into a primary court of review, cannot substitute it's own view for the view taken by the authority whose decision is under review just because another view is possible, unless the view of the authority subject to review is shown to be illegal or perverse or illogical or impossible, or procedurally improper. These are all nothing but part of Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness.” 18. In the case at hand the activities of the petitioner are restricted only to the city of Latur i.e. three police stations viz. Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Police Station and MIDC Police Station. His activities are restricted to Latur city. It was unreasonable on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to extern him from entire Latur district. No reason is assigned for externing the petitioner to an expansive area than the area of his activities. One of the reasons assigned for externing the petitioner from Latur district is kidnapping and raping a minor. As stated above the petitioner in Crime No. 212 of 2010 was accused of offence punishable under Section 376, 363, 366, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. in which he has been acquitted. Therefore, having regard to the material placed on record it was improper on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to extern the petitioner from entire district of Latur. Morever, the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate produced by the learned APP does not show that F.I.R. No. 31/13, 93/16, 329/16 and 121/18 were produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latur. This clealry shows that F.I.R. which were not part of the proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate have been considered for externing the petitioner. The order, therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. This clealry shows that F.I.R. which were not part of the proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate have been considered for externing the petitioner. The order, therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In view of this and having considered the material placed before the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it cannot be said that there was sufficient material before the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for externing the petitioner. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed. (ii) The order/externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latur and also the impugned order confirming the externment dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule made absolute in those terms.