JUDGMENT : Sandip Kumar Chandrabhan More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 27/05/2021 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, under which he is extended from Jalgaon District for a period of two years. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08/09/2021 passed by respondent no. 1, who has confirmed the earlier order of respondent no. 2 in Externment Appeal No. 62 of 2021. 3. Background facts are as under : The petitioner claims to be a labourer in his local area maintaining his family peacefully. However, respondent no. 2 issued show cause notice dated 05/02/2021 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby called explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from Jalgaon District for a period of two years since he indulged into criminal activities being a gang leader. The details of offences registered against the petitioner as mentioned in the notice dated 05/02/2021 are as follows: Sr. No. Police Station Crime No. and Sections Name of the participated accused persons Present status 1. Ramanand Nagar 86/2017 (151/2017) under sections 147, 143, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of IPC 1. Govinda s/o. Pitambar Bhoi 2. Samadhan s/o. Harchand Bhoi 3. Sagar s/o. Harchand Bhoi Subjudice 2. Ramanand Nagar 234/2018 (415/2018, under Sections 307, 353, 295, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 135 of IPC 1. Sagar s/o. Harchand Bhoi 2. Harfan @ Eppo Yusuf pathan Subjudice 3. Ramanand Nagar 118/2019 (237/2019), under Sections 452 and 392 r.w. 34 of IPC Paddumn @ Banti Nandu Mahale Subjudice 4. Ramanand Nagar 70/2020 (205/2020), under Sections 324, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 135 of IPC 1. Govinda s/o. Pitambar Bhoi 2. Samadhan s/o. Harchand Bhoi 3. Sagar s/o. Harchand Bhoi 4. Paddumn @ Banti Nandu Mahale Subjudice 5. Zilhapeth 247/2019, under Section 389 r.w. 34 of IPC Paddumn @ Banti Nandu Mahale Subjudice Besides this, the particulars of preventive measures taken against the petitioner and other gang members as per the provisions of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are also mentioned therein. The petitioner thereafter submitted his explanation along with other two members in response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, respondent no. The petitioner thereafter submitted his explanation along with other two members in response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 by considering entire material against the petitioner and other members of his gang, passed the impugned order dated 27/05/2021 externing the petitioner and others from Jalgaon District as mentioned above. The petitioner preferred an Externment Appeal No. 62 of 2021 against the said order under Section 60 of the Act before respondent no. 1, but respondent no. 1 after reconsidering entire material along with the impugned order, dismissed the said appeal. As such, earlier order of respondent no. 2 dated 27/05/2021 bearing was confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders are prima facie erroneous since extraneous material was considered while passing the same. He also submits that the orders are excessive in nature since criminal activities shown against the petitioner, are only restricted to Ramanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon. He further submits that both the concerned authorities erred in passing the orders, which are based upon only two criminal cases registered against the petitioner, out of which one is of the year 2017 and another is of the year 2020. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing both the impugned orders. 5. On the contrary, the learned APP has filed affidavit in reply and strongly opposed the petition and submits that the gang of the petitioner is known as 'Khandoba Gang' in the vicinity of Jalgaon District and the said gang is involved in serious criminal offences involving unlawful assembly, deterring public at large, beatings and attempting to commit murder, rioting etc. It is submitted by the learned APP that no one from the public is coming forward to lodge written or oral complaint against the petitioner due to his deterrence. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire material on record along with both the impugned orders and also police papers submitted by the learned APP. 7. Section 55 of the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons, which reads as under: "55. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire material on record along with both the impugned orders and also police papers submitted by the learned APP. 7. Section 55 of the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons, which reads as under: "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 officer may, by notification 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 officer thinks fit, 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 officer 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." It is to be noted here that for taking cognizance under the said section, the alleged criminal activities of the gang members need to be collective in nature and if the same is not found like that then a case under Section 55 of the Act cannot be made out. This appears to be very first requirement of Section 55. In light of this, if we perused the notice dated 05/02/2021, it appears that there are two crimes registered against the petitioner along with other members of his gang. This appears to be very first requirement of Section 55. In light of this, if we perused the notice dated 05/02/2021, it appears that there are two crimes registered against the petitioner along with other members of his gang. First crime is of the year 2017, which is pending for trial and second crime is of the year 2020, which is also subjudice. 8. Thus, it prima facie appears that despite committing an offence in the year, 2017, there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner and he again indulged into serious crime involving against human body, rioting and breach of orders of the authority meant for maintaining law and order. Further, the first impugned order dated 27/05/2021 passed by respondent no. 2 clearly indicates that the gang of the petitioner is known as 'Khandoba Gang' in the vicinity of Jalgaon District and the same is involved in serious crimes as mentioned in the notice along with extortion, rioting etc. Further, sufficient opportunity was also given to the petitioner and other members of being heard before passing the said order. It appears that despite sufficient opportunity, no satisfactory explanation has been filed by the petitioner on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly objected the impugned orders on the ground that the same are excessive in nature since the petitioner has been externed from entire Jalgaon District even though his criminal activities are restricted to the area under the jurisdiction of Ramanand Nagar Police Station only. However, the learned Full Bench of this Court, Bench at Nagpur in the case of Sumit s/o. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-1, Nagpur and another, reported in 2019(2) Mh. L.J. 745, has already observed that the authority is having every power to extern the persons involving in dangerous crimes from the contiguous area to avoid breach of public order. It is specifically observed in the aforesaid judgment in para 26 as follows : "26. L.J. 745, has already observed that the authority is having every power to extern the persons involving in dangerous crimes from the contiguous area to avoid breach of public order. It is specifically observed in the aforesaid judgment in para 26 as follows : "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 refection 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. Question no. 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. Question no. (1) having three aspects enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c), is answered specifically through the three conclusions made as above." In view of aforesaid observation, it is clearly evident that even though the criminal activities of a particular person is restricted to a certain area, but considering the advance modes of transportation he can be externed from larger area than that if there is sufficient material against him about his serious criminal activities. Under such circumstances, we find that there is sufficient material against the petitioner about his indulgence in the criminal activities. Further there appears subjective satisfaction in respect of the said material at the hands of both the concerned authorities below. Further, there appears live link in the crimes committed by the petitioner and his externment order. The last crime against the petitioner appears to be registered in the year 2020 and therefore, immediately in the said year itself, the externment proposal against him, was initiated and he has been finally externed in the year 2021. Further there is also reference of confidential in-camera statements of witnesses, which have been verified by the authorities. Therefore, considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the concerned authorities have passed appropriate orders by considering the material against him in proper perspective. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In the result, we pass following order. ORDER (I) Writ petition stands dismissed. (II) The rule stands discharged. (III) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.