JUDGMENT Sandipkumar C. More, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar whereby the petitioners have been externed from the entire Nandurbar District for the period of two years. Further, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Externment appeal No. 111/2021, whereby the earlier order dated 09.09.2021 is confrmed. 3. The background facts are as under : The respondent through Police Inspector, Nandurbar Police Station had sent externment proposal in respect of the petitioners under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') since it was found that all the petitioners were involved in serious criminal activities being a gang in the jurisdiction of Nandurbar city police station. Those criminal activities involved formation of unlawful assembly, use of dangerous weapon, commission of rioting, criminal trespass and the offences related to human body. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Police Offcer, Nandurbar conducted inquiry of the said externment proposal and proposed that the petitioners were required to be externed from entire Nandurbar District for the period of two years. accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar on the basis of the reported submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Offcer, Nandurbar, issued notice dated 15.07.2021 under Section 59 of the act and asked all the petitioners as to why they should not be externed from Nandurbar District as proposed. all the petitioners submitted their replies by denying all the allegations made against them in the said notice. However, the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar under the impugned order dated 09.09.2021, externed the petitioners as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 09.09.2021, the petitioners even preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik bearing Externment appeal No. 111/2021 under Section 60 of the act. However, learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik was pleased to dismiss the same vide order 06.12.2021 by confrming the earlier impugned order dated 09.09.2021. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the impugned orders are prima facie erroneous and against the provisions of law. However, learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik was pleased to dismiss the same vide order 06.12.2021 by confrming the earlier impugned order dated 09.09.2021. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the impugned orders are prima facie erroneous and against the provisions of law. He submits that the externment proposal against the petitioners is allowed by ignoring the settled principle of law and without there being any material to show that the petitioners acted together in the criminal acts being a gang or body of persons. He submits that the criminal activities of the petitioners considered by the authorities below for their externment are individualistic in nature and not in collective form. He further submits that the Chapter cases shown against the petitioners are also fled in their individual capacity and not as a group. Further, the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are brothers, and therefore, they cannot be termed as gang members or leader of such gang. He further submits that most of the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are not committed collectively by the petitioners and in some of those crimes, the concerned petitioners are also acquitted. The main crimes which appear to be committed collectively by the petitioners, are the result of family dispute, and therefore, they cannot be said as the crimes against public at large. With these submissions the learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. In addition to the oral submissions, the learned Counsel also relied upon the following judgments : (i) Rahmat Khan alias Rammu Bismillah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 641. (ii) Vijay Lalso Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1432. (iii) Praful Bhausaheb Yadav vs. K.K. Pathak and others 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 188. (iv) Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1439. (v) Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 638/2021 (Shoeb @ Sharif @ Shafya Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and others). 5. On the contrary, learned a.P.P. for the respondent-State strongly opposed the petition by fling affdavit-in-reply of the assistant Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Nandurbar. Learned a.P.P. supported both the impugned orders and submits that the impugned orders are appropriately passed by considering the entire material on record in proper manner. 5. On the contrary, learned a.P.P. for the respondent-State strongly opposed the petition by fling affdavit-in-reply of the assistant Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Nandurbar. Learned a.P.P. supported both the impugned orders and submits that the impugned orders are appropriately passed by considering the entire material on record in proper manner. He submits that there are various crimes registered against the petitioners in the area of Nandurbar City Police Station. Besides, the prohibitory action under Sections 110 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated against the petitioners considering their criminal activities. as such, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire material on record alongwith the police papers and the impugned orders. 7. It is signifcant to note that the externment proposal against the petitioners was sent in view of Section 55 of the act. We would like to reproduce the said Section as below : '55. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons. - Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and in other areas in which a Commissioner is appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Superintendent empowered by the State Government in that behalf, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such offcer may, by notifcation addressed to the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men of such gang or body and published by beat of drum or otherwise as such offcer thinks ft, direct the members of such gang or body so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction [or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto] within such time as such offcer shall prescribe, and not to enter to area [for the areas and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be,] or return to the place from which each of them was directed to remove himself. 8. 8. On perusal of Section 55 of the act, it appears that the main requirement for attracting Section 55 is that the criminal cases against gang or group of persons must be collective in nature and the same should not be individualistic in nature. Further, it has to be shown that the petitioners involved in criminal activities must be the members of gang. Further, there should be specifc material on record showing that the persons are acting as gang or body of persons. Section 55 of the act can only be invoked if all these aforesaid ingredients are present. 9. On perusal of the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar, it is evident that the following crimes registered in Nandurbar City Police Station against the petitioners have been considered for their externment. Crime registered against all the petitioners : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Court Case No. Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.28/2020 307 of IPC RCC No.186 of 2020 Pending Crime registered against petitioner Nos.1 to 5 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No. CR No. Court Case No. Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.281/2020 143, 147, 148,149, 324,504, 506 of IPC, under section 37(1)(3) of Mah. Police act RCC No.251 of 2020 Pending Crime registered against petitioner Nos.2 and 5 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Court Case No Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.136/2015 324,504, 504/34 of IPC RCC No.24 of 2016 Not proved. Crime registered against petitioner No. 2 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Court Case No. Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.425 of 2020 268,269,289, 290of IPC & u/s 5, 9(a) of Maharashtra animal Preservation act, u/s 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to animal act, 1960 & u/s 291 of Maharashtra Municipal act RCC No.1701 of 2020 Pending Crime registered against petitioner No.3 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No. Under Sections Court Case No Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.65 of 2015 5(C), 9, 9(a) of Maharashtra animal Preservation act. RCC No.114 of 2016 Not proved. Crime registered against petitioner No.2 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Court Case No Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.279 of 2020 160 of IPC RCC No.1755 of 2021 Proved. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.65 of 2015 5(C), 9, 9(a) of Maharashtra animal Preservation act. RCC No.114 of 2016 Not proved. Crime registered against petitioner No.2 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Court Case No Final Result 1. City Police Station Part-5, CR No.279 of 2020 160 of IPC RCC No.1755 of 2021 Proved. Crime registered against petitioner No.1 : Sr. No. Police Station CR No Under Sections Chargesheet No Final Result 1. City Police Station CR No. 1100 of 2020 U/s 268,269,290 of IPC, u/s 11(G((D) of Prevention of Cruelty to animal act, 1960 & u/s 119 of the Maharashtra Police act. 1238 of 2020 Charge sheet is yet to be fled in the Court Non cognizable case registered against petitioner Nos.1 & 2 : Sr. No Police Station CR No. CR No. Registered on 1. City Police Station Reg. No. 149/2020 Under Sec. 186 of IPC 27.05.2020 Besides, the aforesaid crimes, certain prohibitory action against the petitioners also appear to be considered, which are as follows : Sr. No. Police Station Proposal No. and Section Name of accused 1 City Police Station 1. Ch.Case No.269/2020 u/s 107 CrPC, dt. 29.07.2020 2. Ch.Case No.150/2020 u/s 107 CrPC, dt. 11.03.2020 3. Ch.Case No.234/2020 u/s 107 CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020 Mushtakim Sk. Shahabuddin Qureshi, age 28 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar 2 City Police Station 1. Ch.Case No.6/2020 u/s 110 of CrPC, dt. 28.07.2020. 2. Ch.Case No.145/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 10.03.2020 Pappu @ Farukh Khan Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 40 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar. 3 City Police Station 1. Ch.Case No.7/2020 u/s 110 of CrPC, dt. 28.07.2020. 2. Ch.Case No.222/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 07.07.2020 Nayabkhan Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 48 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar 4 City Police Station 1. Ch.Case No.144/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 10.03.2020. 2. Ch.Case No.235/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020 Firoz Khan Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 48 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar. 5 City Police Station Ch.Case No.241/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020. Sikandar Khan s/o Jahirkhan Qureshi, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar 6 City Police Station Ch.Case No.243/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020 Raju @ Firdos Khan s/o Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 40 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar. 10. 26.07.2020 Firoz Khan Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 48 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar. 5 City Police Station Ch.Case No.241/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020. Sikandar Khan s/o Jahirkhan Qureshi, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar 6 City Police Station Ch.Case No.243/2020 u/s 107 of CrPC, dt. 26.07.2020 Raju @ Firdos Khan s/o Jahirkhan Qureshi, age 40 yrs, r/o Qureshi Mohalla, Nandurbar. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly submitted that the aforesaid material considered for externment of the petitioners is not in the form of collective activities, but it is individualistic in nature. On this background if we peruse the crimes registered against the petitioners, then it is evident that Crime No. 28/2020 under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 37 (1) (3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police act is registered against 12 accused persons, but only six accused, who are the present petitioners, are selected for externment. Further, on going through the F.I.R., it appears that there was dispute between family members and other party also lodged cross F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 29/2020. Similarly, in Crime No.281/2020 petitioner No.1 is not party in the said crime and rest of the petitioners are there alongwith other 11 accused. Further, on perusal of F.I.R. it is clearly evident that the same has been arisen out of family dispute and the rival party has also fled cross F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 280/2020. Thus, it appears that though the petitioners are shown to be involved in Crime No. 28/2020 and Crime No. 281/2020, but those crimes are the result of family dispute and not against public at large. Further, Crime No. 136/2015 is of old nature and it is only against petitioner Nos. 2 and 5. Moreover, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 have already been acquitted from the trial of the said crime. 11. In crime No.425/2020 under Sections 268, 269, 289, 290 of I.P.C., under Section 5 (C) 9 (a) of Maharashtra animal Preservation act, under Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to animal act, 1960 and under Section 291 of Maharashtra Municipal act only petitioner No.6 is accused and not petitioner No.2 as claimed in the order. Moreover, the said crime is also not against public at large. Moreover, the said crime is also not against public at large. Further, Crime No. 65/2015 under Sections 5 (C), 9 and 9(a) of the Maharashtra animal Preservation act is also not against public at large and it is registered only against petitioner No.3. Moreover, on perusal of the judgment in the trial of the said crime, it appears that petitioner No. 3 has already been acquitted. Further, Crime No. 279/2020 appears to be under Section 160 and 268 of I.P.C. which is only against petitioner No.2 for not wearing mask during the pandemic period. It further appears that petitioner has been convicted in the said crime only when he pleaded guilty. The said offences also cannot be said against the public at large. Further Crime No.1100/2020 is also under Sections 268, 269, 290 of I.P.C. and under Section 11 (G)(D) of Prevention of Cruelty to animal act 1960 and Section 119 of the Maharashtra Police act. In this crime only petitioner No. 1 is involved and not the other petitioners. On perusal of the F.I.R. in the said crime, it appears that full name of petitioner No.1 is shown as not known, and therefore, there is ambiguity whether the present petitioner No.1 was in fact involved in the said crime. Even if it is assumed that the said crime has been registered against petitioner No.1, then also the nature of the crime is not harmful to public at large. 12. Besides the aforesaid crimes, there is non-cognizable case No. 149/2020 under Section 149 of I.P.C. which is only against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and not against all the petitioners. Further, the prohibitory actions by way of Chapter cases as shown above are also of individualistic nature and separately fled against the petitioners. Thus, on perusal of entire material which is considered for the externment of the petitioners, it is clearly evident that the crimes registered against the petitioners are either separate crimes or they are more of individualistic nature. Further, only frst two crimes appears to be committed collectively by the petitioners, but they are also arising out of family disputes wherein cross complaints are registered. as such, it cannot be said that because of those two crimes there is danger to the public at large. 13. Further, only frst two crimes appears to be committed collectively by the petitioners, but they are also arising out of family disputes wherein cross complaints are registered. as such, it cannot be said that because of those two crimes there is danger to the public at large. 13. Though it is mentioned in the impugned order dated 09.09.2021 by the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar that there is alarm in the public at large due to deterrent behaviour of the petitioners, and therefore, nobody from common public are coming forward openly to lodge report against the petitioners, but nothing is thereon record to support the same. Further, though it is mentioned in the said order that some of the confdential witnesses have stated against the petitioners, but the contents of such confdential statements are also not mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, on perusal of the entire material on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioners have not acted criminally in the vicinity of Nandurbar District being a gang or body of persons. 14. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain judgments as mentioned above, the judgments in the cases of Rahmat Khan alias Rammu Bismillah vs. Deputy and Praful Bhausaheb Yadav vs. K.K. Pathak and others (supra) are not much helpful to the instant case as the same relate to externment under Sectin 56 (1) (a) (b) of the act. In the case of Vijay Lalso Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), this Court in para-8 has observed that Section 55 of the act can be invoked only if there is collective criminal activities of the body of persons or gang. In the case of Vijay Lalso Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), this Court in para-8 has observed that Section 55 of the act can be invoked only if there is collective criminal activities of the body of persons or gang. In the said judgment, reference of the observation made in the case of ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2385/2013) has come, which is as below : "Upon a careful reading of this section, it becomes clear that, whenever it appears to the competent authority that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area under his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body of persons or by its members, such offcer may by notifcation addressed to the leaders or chief men of such gang or body of persons and suitably published, issue two types of directions. The frst direction is about regulating of conduct of such gang or body of persons in a manner prescribed in the direction in order to prevent violence and alarm. Such direction, in the alternative, can also be in the form of an order for dispersal of members of such gang or body of persons. The second direction which follows the frst one, is about removal of each of the members of the gang or body of persons outside the area within the local limits of jurisdiction of the competent authority. In suitable cases, the order of removal can also be from district or it's parts or together with contiguous districts or parts thereof. This second direction, in order to be reasonable, has to be passed for a defnite period of time. In the entire section, there is common thread of participation by all and collective action against all that holds together all it's parts. The section starts with gang or body of persons, sails through the dangerous impressions that the movement or encampment of gang or body of persons creates and ends with a direction of removal passed against each of the members of the gang or body of persons. This common thread is the essence of Section 55 and that is the mandate of the legislature. This common thread is the essence of Section 55 and that is the mandate of the legislature. In other words, Section 55 would be applicable only when the persons are seen to be acting as members of the gang or body of persons and it is only then that action under Section 55 of the act can be taken and which is to be taken against all members and not only a few of them selectively." (emphasis supplied). On perusal of the aforesaid observation, it reveals that Section 55 of the act would be applicable only when the persons against whom externment is proposed, are seen to be acting as member of of gang or body of persons. 15. In the instant case, there is no suffcient material on record to show that the petitioners have acted criminally as members of gang or body of persons. 16. In the case of Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court has observed in para-9 as follows : '9. as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, there is no live link between the offences registered and initiation of the present externment proceedings against the petitioner. It appears from the perusal of the original record that while initiating the externment proceedings in the year 2017, the offences registered in the year 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 are also taken into 41.18WP.odt consideration by the Respondent authorities. Therefore, there is no live link and proximity between the registration of the said offences and initiation of the present externment proceedings'. The aforesaid observation appears to be helpful in this case since there are certain crimes of 2015 appear to be considered in the instant case. Moreover, the concerned petitioners have also been acquitted in the trial of the said crimes. as such, the aspect of live link is also missing in the present case as per the aforesaid observation. Further, this Court (Coram : V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 638 of 2021 has made the following observation in para 24 : '24. as discussed herein before, whatever criminal cases are there against the petitioners, did not show that they have indulged in criminal activities as a group and either of them is held as a member of the gang. as discussed herein before, whatever criminal cases are there against the petitioners, did not show that they have indulged in criminal activities as a group and either of them is held as a member of the gang. The material relied upon by the authority did not make out any case against the petitioners as a member or chief of gang or a body of a persons simply on the basis of two crimes referred above cannot be said to be suffcient material to brand them as gang members or chief of the gang'. . In the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have indulged into criminal activities as a group or as a gang, and therefore, the aforesaid observation squarely applies to the instant matter. 17. Thus, on going through the entire material on record and in the light of the observations made by this Court as mentioned in the above-cited cases, we are of the opinion that the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are more of individualistic in nature and do not show involvement of the petitioners therein as a body of persons or gang. as such, the main requirements of Section 55 of the act as mentioned in the opening para, are not fulflled. It appears that both the authorities below have considered the individual activities of the petitioners for their externment without application of mind. Moreover, both the authorities below have wrongly come to the conclusion that such individual activities are deterrent to the public at large. On the contrary, all the crimes registered against the petitioners appear to be of private nature and not suffcient to disturb the public tranquility. Moreover, the crimes against the petitioners are registered only in City Police Station, Nandurbar and even though the petitioners are externed from the entire Nandurbar District. Such action on the part of both the authorities below is therefore defnitely excessive in nature. Further, there appears no subjective satisfaction on the part of those authorities. 18. in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause [B]. (ii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iii) Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.