JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of externment passed by the externment authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Heard Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. G. Borade, APP for the respondents/State. 4. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that the externment proceedings was initiated against in all six persons including these two petitioners contending that petitioner No.1 is the chief of the gang and remaining five are the members of the gang. He submitted that while passing the externment order dated 23rd March, 2022, the competent authority has dropped the proceedings against four members of the gang and passed the order of externment against petitioner No.1 being chief of the gang and petitioner No.2 being member of the gang. He vehemently submitted that this selective approach of the competent authority is not permissible under law. He further invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that alleged criminal activities of the petitioners and their associates are restricted to Parbhani district, according to the case of the police machinery. However, the petitioners came to be externed from adjoining two talukas from Beed district. The petitioners have been externed from Parli-Vaijnath and Majalgaon, which are adjoining taluka places without assigning any reason for using such excessive power for externment. He submitted that in absence of recording any reasons to that effect, the order is bad in law. 5. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply and in the show-cause-notice, in all seven crimes have been shown against these petitioners. Out of them, the petitioners came to be acquitted from four crimes and in respect of three crimes, the cases are pending before the criminal Court. He submitted that there is no live link to connect these petitioners. He submitted that there was no sufficient material available with the externing authority to pass the impugned order. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects and mechanically dismissed the appeal. He submitted that both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. He submitted that there was no sufficient material available with the externing authority to pass the impugned order. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects and mechanically dismissed the appeal. He submitted that both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed his reliance in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.650 of 2021 (Coram: M. S. Sonak and Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.) dated 28th October, 2021. By taking help of the above said citation, Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts of the case in hand and the facts of the cited case are practically identical and in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal (supra), the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside in view of selective approach while passing the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, Mr. Borade, learned APP for the State/respondents submitted that the order passed by the externment authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, are valid in the eye of law. Those have been passed according to the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. By taking into account the criminal record of the petitioners being chief of the gang and member of the gang, the competent authority has passed the order of externment. There is no legal defect. The principles of natural justice have been followed. He submitted that the authority is empowered to pass the externment order beyond the particular jurisdiction in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sumit s/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Anr., reported in, 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 1961 (F.B.). 8. Mr. Borade, learned APP for the respondents/State then invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Police Inspector, Samadhan Kishanrao Chavare (page No.141) and pointed out the criminal record against the petitioners and their associates. The learned APP for the respondents/State also placed his reliance in the case of State Vs. Brijesh Singh alias Arun Kumar and others dated 16th April, 2015 and submitted that the petitioners alongwith their members are running crime syndicate. The learned APP for the respondents/State also placed his reliance in the case of State Vs. Brijesh Singh alias Arun Kumar and others dated 16th April, 2015 and submitted that the petitioners alongwith their members are running crime syndicate. The decision makes it clear that whether a gang member commits crimes alone, individually or with others, he is committing crimes on behalf of the gang. As such, the petitioners are liable for such action and there is no legal defect. 9. Mr. Borade, learned APP for the respondents/State further invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the competent authority has given reason as to why externment proceedings is dropped against four persons, who are members of the gang. He, therefore, submitted that there is no defect in the impugned order as well as the order passed by the appellate authority. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the petition. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. 11. Two points are involved in the petition. One, whether it is legally permissible for the competent authority to have a selective approach while passing the order of externment, and second, whether the competent authority can pass order of externment beyond its jurisdiction in respect of adjoining areas without recording any reason. 12. It is an admitted position that the petitioners came to be acquitted out of four crimes as reflected in the reply affidavit paragraph 7 (page No.141). As on today, three crimes are pending against the petitioners. On that basis, the present petitioners have been externed from district Parbhani and adjoining talukas Parli-Vaijnath and Majalgaon. 13. Let me first deal with the point of selective approach of the competent authority. Whether it is permissible under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. This point is answered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal (supra), wherein the Division Bench has taken help of two decisions of this Court in the case of Vijay Lalso Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 475 and Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 231. It is held by the Division Bench of this Court that when externment proceedings is initiated against chief of the gang and members of the gang, the action under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act would follow against all. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 231. It is held by the Division Bench of this Court that when externment proceedings is initiated against chief of the gang and members of the gang, the action under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act would follow against all. 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 and that is why action against all is mandatory if the competent authority intends to extern by taking aid of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 14. Section 55 nowhere gives discretion to the competent authority to have a selective approach. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the externment proceedings was initiated against in all six persons including petitioner No.1 being chief of the gang and petitioner No.2 being member of the gang. However, externment proceedings came to be dropped against four members of the gang and externment order came to be passed against the present petitioners under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Certainly, it is a selective approach of the competent authority. It is not permissible in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vinod S/o Raju Tejwal (supra). Certainly, the impugned order is defective in the eye of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Now, coming to another point regarding exercise of power by the competent authority to extern a person beyond its jurisdiction. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case Sumit s/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe (supra), the competent authority is empowered to extern a person even from the adjoining areas. But, while exercising that jurisdiction, the competent authority is required to record reasons for use of such excessive jurisdiction. Then only that action would be justified in the eye of law. 16. Mr. Borade, learned APP for the respondents/State pointed out that the competent authority has recorded reason in the operative part of the order regarding externing the petitioners beyond Parbhani district in view of transportation and conveyance facilities available to them and it cannot be termed as excessive order. 16. Mr. Borade, learned APP for the respondents/State pointed out that the competent authority has recorded reason in the operative part of the order regarding externing the petitioners beyond Parbhani district in view of transportation and conveyance facilities available to them and it cannot be termed as excessive order. However, there is no record to support such reasoning that petitioners are running crime syndicate and being members of crime syndicate they have also committed offences in the adjoining places or talukas and there was need to extern them from that particular two talukas. In absence of those reasons and grounds, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. 17. On perusing the impugned order, one would find that the competent authority has recorded one line reason while passing the impugned order externing the petitioners beyond the area of Parbhani district. That reason can not be said to be out of subjective satisfaction. As such, the impugned order is found defective in the eye of law. 18. In case of Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99, it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the externment is a extraordinary measure. If a person is externed from a particular area or district, it amounts to deprivation of his fundamental right. He cannot move freely in that particular area, which affects his right to move freely. As such, the competent authority is required to take great caution and care while passing the externment order. 19. Having regard to the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, if the above material/criminal record of the petitioners is taken into consideration, it would be clear that the order impugned is defective on two grounds; one, selective approach of the competent authority and second, excessive order, which is not permissible without recording reasons. 20. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects while deciding the externment appeal and dismissed the appeal. 21. I have also gone through the in-camera statements marked as ‘A’ and ‘B”. On going through the same very carefully, it is noticed that omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners and their members of the so-called crime syndicate. No date and other particulars are given in the statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. As such, it is difficult to place reliance on such in-camera statements. 22. On going through the same very carefully, it is noticed that omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners and their members of the so-called crime syndicate. No date and other particulars are given in the statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. As such, it is difficult to place reliance on such in-camera statements. 22. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, the impugned order of externment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority are found defective in the eye of law. Certainly, both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER I. The petition stands allowed. II. The impugned order of externment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani dated 23rd March, 2022 and confirmed by the appellate authority/Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Externment Appeal No.43 of 2022 vide order dated 20th June, 2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. III. Rule made absolute in above terms. IV. No order as to costs. V. The petition is accordingly disposed of.