JUDGMENT SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard fnally at admission stage. 2. The petitioner has fled this criminal writ petition challenging the order dtd. 08/10/2021 passed by respondent No.3 SubDivisional Magistrate, Kinvat, District Nanded in Proceeding No.2021/Externment Order/Kinvat/Proceeding No.04, whereby the petitioner has been externed from entire Nanded District for a period of six months. The petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 12/01/2022 passed by respondent No.1 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad in proceeding No.2021/GA/Room-1/Pol-1/Externment/CR-71, whereby appeal under Sec. 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been rejected and the earlier impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 is confrmed. 3. Background facts are as under : The petitioner claims that he is a respectable, well educated and law abiding person having roots in the society. He is also a journalist by profession. However, without there being any cause of action or sustainable ground, a proposal dtd. 30/06/2021 for his externment under the provisions of Sec. 56 (1)(b) of the Act was moved by the Police Inspector of Kinvat Police Station i.e. present respondent no.5. In the said proposal, externment of the petitioner was proposed from Nanded and Yavatmal districts for a period of two years. The said proposal was forwarded through respondent no.4 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Police Offcer, Sub-Division, Kinvat. In view of the said proposal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent no.3 issued notice dtd. 12/08/2021 to the petitioner asking him for appearance on 20/08/2021 with written submission. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent no.3 and fled his detailed say by denying all the adverse allegations made against him in the said notice. The petitioner contended that he did not involve in any criminal activity and his acts were not at all dangerous to the society as he never convicted by any competent court. According to him, there were only two crimes registered against him in Kinvat Police Station in the year, 2017 and 2021. Out of those crimes, one is now pending before the court, bearing RCC No.75 of 2018 and informant and his mother in the said crime, have already fled an affdavit before the concerned court that no such incident mentioned in the complaint had taken place. However, respondent no.3 then passed the impugned order dtd. Out of those crimes, one is now pending before the court, bearing RCC No.75 of 2018 and informant and his mother in the said crime, have already fled an affdavit before the concerned court that no such incident mentioned in the complaint had taken place. However, respondent no.3 then passed the impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 and thereby externed the petitioner from entire Nanded district for a period of six months. The petitioner then challenged the said order dtd. 08/10/2021 before respondent no.1 by preferring an appeal under Sec. 60 of the Act. However, respondent no. 1 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal vide its order dtd. 12/01/2022. Hence, this criminal writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the aforesaid impugned orders are erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that both the authorities below have passed the impugned orders with mala fde intention since the petitioner fled applications under RTI Act to disclose corrupt practices of government servants. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no suffcient material on record to take such drastic action of externment against the petitioner since his behaviour is not at all deterrent to public at large. He further submits that the nature of crimes registered against the petitioner, is private and in one of those crimes, the informant is ready to compromise the same. He further submits that both the impugned orders are excessive in nature and passed without application of mind by the authorities below and that too without subjective satisfaction. Besides oral submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heavily relied on following judgments : I) Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2022 [ SLP (Cri.) No. 9032 of 2021] (Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) II) Criminal Writ Petition No. 1400 of 2019, decided on 24/09/2019 (Maroti Dattarao Bansode vs. The Superintendent of Police, Parbhani and others) and III) Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2021 [Special Leave petition (CRL.) 1676 of 2021] (Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police). 5. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed the petition by fling an affdavit in reply dtd. 08/03/2022 and supported both the impugned orders. According to him, the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in blackmailing tactics against the government offcials. 6. 5. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed the petition by fling an affdavit in reply dtd. 08/03/2022 and supported both the impugned orders. According to him, the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in blackmailing tactics against the government offcials. 6. We have carefully gone through the impugned orders and material placed before us. We also perused the affdavit in reply fled by the learned APP along with police papers. 7. It is signifcant to note that respondent no.3 has passed the externment order against the petitioner on the basis of two crimes registered against him, which are as follows : 8. So far as frst crime of 2017 is concerned, it has been registered on the basis of FIR lodged by one Pavan Baba Bele on the allegations that the petitioner had beaten him when the informant asked him as to why the petitioner dodged him with motorcycle. So far as second crime of 2021 is concerned, it has been registered on the FIR lodged by one Reghunath Prabhu Ghodke, wherein the petitioner prepared bogus 'Bachatgat' for securing thousands of rupees and claimed ransom of Rs.2,00,000.00 and thereby committed extortion. However, both these crimes appear to be individualistic in nature. Moreover, the informant in frst crime along with his mother appear to have fled an affdavit in concerned court mentioning that no such crime had taken place. However, the matter is subjudice and therefore, we are not intending to make any comment on the said aspect but it is apparent that the petitioner has been externed only on the basis of the aforesaid two crimes. 9. Admittedly, the authorities below, have power to extern a person under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, which we would like to reproduce herein below : "56. 9. Admittedly, the authorities below, have power to extern a person under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, which we would like to reproduce herein below : "56. Removal of persons about to commit offence : (1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in other area of areas to which the State Government may, be notifcation in the Offcial Gazcette, extend the provisions of this Sec. , to the District Magistrate, or the SubDivisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf (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 Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such offcer 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 " ? 10. On perusal of the aforesaid sec. , it reveals that a person can be externed accordingly only if there is suffcient material against him about his criminal activities on record. Further for such externment there must be a material on record to show how the externee is causing alarm, danger or harm to any person or property. Moreover, it has to be established that externee is engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Here in this case as mentioned above the offences against the petitioner appear to be private in nature and not against public at large. Further, though there is mention of four confdential statements in the impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 itself, but it is clearly mentioned there in that two of those confdential witnesses are of senior government offcials. Here in this case as mentioned above the offences against the petitioner appear to be private in nature and not against public at large. Further, though there is mention of four confdential statements in the impugned order dtd. 08/10/2021 itself, but it is clearly mentioned there in that two of those confdential witnesses are of senior government offcials. In the said confdential statements the government offcials have stated that the petitioner is in habit of making complaints against the government offcers and he also frequently seeks information under RTI Act for pressurizcing them. It is important to note that it has been mentioned in the said order dtd. 08/10/2021 that due to such behaviour of the petitioner, there sub-ordinates are also reluctant to take action against him. However, such contents of said confdential statements cannot be believed since the government offcials have every power to take precise action according to law against the petitioner, if it is found that he is having habit of making such frivolous applications. There is no question of being deterred by the petitioner for the said government offcers if he is making false applications for blackmailing them. In the judgment in the case of Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the externment of similar person who was a journalist and social worker. The Supreme Court in para 22, 24 has made following observations. "22. The Appellant had been fling applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from concerned authorities, in relation to illegalities in disbursement of funds to various Madrasas including Al Haram International English School run by Joha Education and Charitable Welfare Trust, and Priyadarshini urdu Primary and Pre-Secondary School run by Madrasi Baba Education Welfare Society. Pursuant to such applications, the Offce of the Education Offcer had sought information from the concerned Headmasters vide communications dtd. 23/8/2017 and 25/9/2017 respectively. 24. It is not in dispute that the three FIRs were fled soon after the Appellant started making complaints and raising queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Reference may be made to a response dtd. 7/9/2018 of the Offce of the District Collector in response to a query of the Appellant vide an application dtd. 16/8/2018. the response is extracted below for convenience. Reference may be made to a response dtd. 7/9/2018 of the Offce of the District Collector in response to a query of the Appellant vide an application dtd. 16/8/2018. the response is extracted below for convenience. "As per the terms and conditions of Government Resolution of 11/10/2013 on the order of District Collector on the complaint dtd. 14/9/2017 of Rahemat Khan Bismilla Khan in the year 2016-17 inquiry of total 36 Madarsas was done on 15/11/2017 and 26/11/2017 who have taken Government Grant. After this inquiry with the signature of Resident Dy. District Collector and District Collector in offce note in the proposal of 36 Madarsa there is certifcate of registration with the offce of Charity Commissioner. But there is no registration Certifcate in the name of Madarsa in the offce of Waqf Board or Charity Commissioner. In the year 2016-17 the Directors of total 36 Madarsa have been found guilty hence further proposal has been sent to the Govt for necessary action. After getting directives from the Govt further action would be taken". Likewise, the Supreme Court has also observed in para No. 40 while coming to the conclusion in the said case as below. "40. The deplorable allegation of demand for ransom by threat, prima facie, appears to have been concocted to give the complaint a colour of intense gravity. Mr. Patil argued that Appellant had been extorting money under threat of exposing the illegal activities of certain offcials and certain Madrasas or educational institutions. Even assuming that there was substance in the allegation, which appears to be doubtful, an order of externment was unwarranted. There was no reason for the complainants who lodged the FIRs to get terrorizced by the alleged threats, allegedly meted out by the Appellant, for if those complainants had not indulged in unlawful acts, they had nothing to fear. Even otherwise, threat to lodge a complaint cannot possibly be a ground for passing an order of externment under Sec. 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, more so, when the responses of government authorities to queries raised by the Appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance. A person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throught the country, on fimsy grounds". 11. A person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throught the country, on fimsy grounds". 11. In the instant case also the petitioner appears to be a journalist by profession. Moreover, from the perusal of the impugned orders it is evident that he had fled various complaints in respect of public cause and also fled so many applications under Right to Information Act against government offcers. As stated above, there are only two crimes registered against him and that too of individualistic nature and not against public at large. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, it appears that both the authorities below have externed the petitioner merely because he sought information from government offcials repeatedly. In fact, on perusal of both the impugned orders, it appears that the authorities below, must have externed the petitioner only to get rid of his complaining nature for at least some period without there being substantial material against him. 12. Further, though it is mentioned in the notice dtd. 12/08/2021 that the proposed externment of the petitioner was from Nanded and Yavatmal district but in the order dated 08/10/21021 it has been mentioned from Nanded and Hingoli districts in the beginning. Thus, a clear non-application of mind or arbitrariness can be seen in the said impugned order on the part of respondent no.3. Moreover, two crimes shown against the petitioner, are in fact registered only in Kinvat Police Station and there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is involved in similar criminal activities for rest of the area of Nanded district. It has been already held by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many cases that if the criminal activities of the petitioner are absent in such larger area, then externing him from the said larger area is defnitely an excessive order. In the instant case also, though the criminal activities of the petitioner are restricted to area under the jurisdiction of Kinvat police station, but he has been externed from entire Nanded district without there being any material on record for such larger area. Therefore, aspect of subjective satisfaction of the authorities below is also missing in the instant case. In the instant case also, though the criminal activities of the petitioner are restricted to area under the jurisdiction of Kinvat police station, but he has been externed from entire Nanded district without there being any material on record for such larger area. Therefore, aspect of subjective satisfaction of the authorities below is also missing in the instant case. Thus, considering all these aspects and in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, we come to the conclusion that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order. O R D E R I) Criminal writ petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause "C". II) Rule made absolute in the above terms. II) Criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.