JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Vadlakonda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the Respondent-State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 16/2/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Bhiwandi. By the impugned externment order, the Petitioner was externed from the Districts of Thane, Palghar, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai and Raigad for a period of one year. That order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai vide his order dtd. 26/6/2023 modified the externment order and the area of externment was restricted only to Thane District. The Petitioner has challenged these orders. 4. Before passing the externment order, the Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dtd. 25/7/2022 under Sec. 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act (for short, 'said Act') setting-forth the allegations against him. The Petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer on 3/8/2022 and submitted his reply. After considering his reply and the material against him, the impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had appeared before the inquiry officer on 3/8/2022. After that he was always available, but, he was not granted sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry report was tendered on 9/12/2022. The last date when the proceedings were conducted was 20/9/2022. The externment order was passed on 16/2/2023. This shows that there was no urgency shown by the authorities to pass the externment order immediately. This shows that there was no pressing necessity to extern the Petitioner outside those areas for a period of one year. He submitted that passing of an externment order is an extraordinary remedy and should be resorted only in exceptional cases. The present Petitioner's case is not in such a category. Passing of the externment order was not necessary. 6. He submitted that in the past chapter proceedings were initiated against him and the police authorities could have taken steps in those proceedings instead of passing the harsh externment order. He further submitted that the Petitioner is taking education. More than six months have passed out of the period of externment of one year. 6. He submitted that in the past chapter proceedings were initiated against him and the police authorities could have taken steps in those proceedings instead of passing the harsh externment order. He further submitted that the Petitioner is taking education. More than six months have passed out of the period of externment of one year. He submitted that even in the show cause notice, in respect of the statements of the witnesses recorded in-camera, only vague allegations are made and general particulars are not given thereby preventing him to make effective representation. 7. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to him, there is nothing wrong with the externment order. He submitted that, in fact, the Appellate Authority has shown leniency and the areas of externment order were reduced only to Thane District. He submitted that the Petitioner was not available for the inquiry and even after passing of the externment order. Therefore, the order could not be immediately served on him. It could be served on the Petitioner only in the month of April, 2023 though the order was passed in February, 2023. 8. He submitted that the externment order is a reasoned order and the externing authority has recorded his subjective satisfaction on all aspects under Sec. 56(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act. He submitted that the preventive measures taken under Sec. 107 of Cr.P.C. proved to be ineffective because he was directed to execute a bond for a period between 12/3/2021 to 12/3/2022 and yet, he committed an offence registered at Bhoiwada police station vide C.R. No.40/2022 on 14/2/2022 i.e. during subsistence of the said period. 9. I have considered these submissions and I have perused the show cause notice as well as the impugned externment order. There are two registered offences against the Petitioner at Bhoiwada police station i.e. C.R. No.65/2021 and 40/2022. The show-cause notice was issued on 25/7/2022, and, therefore, there was proximity of action taken against the Petitioner. 10. The in-camera statements gave sufficient particulars regarding those incidents which had taken place in January, 2022 in the 1st and 3rd weeks of the said month. The place of offence is also mentioned. Beyond that, nothing could be disclosed to the Petitioner to safeguard the witnesses. 11. The material against the Petitioner show that his activities were causing alarm and danger to the person and property in the locality where he was residing. The place of offence is also mentioned. Beyond that, nothing could be disclosed to the Petitioner to safeguard the witnesses. 11. The material against the Petitioner show that his activities were causing alarm and danger to the person and property in the locality where he was residing. There were registered offences against him which fell within Chapter XV of IPC . 12. There was subjective satisfaction that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner. 13. Thus, all the requirements of Sec. 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of the said Act are properly complied with. The record shows that the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to represent himself in the externment proceedings. His reply was duly considered as is reflected in the impugned externment order. Leniency is already shown to the Petitioner by the Appellate Authority. I do not find any infirmity in any of the impugned orders. Consequently, Rule is discharged and the Petition is dismissed.