JUDGMENT : Y.G. Khobragade, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides. 2. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1- Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) confirming the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nanded thereby externing the Petitioner from entire Nanded District for a period of six months. 3. On perusal of record, it indicates that the concerned police authorities sought to invoked Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act for the purpose of externment of the Petitioner. On 28.12.2023, the Respondent No.3- Police Inspector, Police Station Vimantal, Nanded (City) issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner-Karanjeet Singh Ragbeer Singh Shahu and others i.e. Sarhan Bil Ali Alkaseri, Kamalkishor Ganeshlal Yadav, Gurprit Singh Gulzar Singh Khaira, on ground that they are operating a gang and their presence in the area is disturbing the peace and tranquility. It is also stated therein that number of offences are registered against the Petitioner and others. Therefore, the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 as to why he should not be externed. The Respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Nanded again issued a notice to the Petitioner on 02.04.2024, calling upon him to submit cause as to why he should not be externed from entire Nanded District for his act of disturbing the peace. Accordingly, on 10.04.2024 the Petitioner submitted his reply and denied all the allegations. He contended that only one offence referred in the notice is registered against him and trial to that effect is pending before the competent Court. He is not a member of any gang. Furthermore, he is also enlarged on bail in the said crime. The Petitioner further contended that due to his behavior there is no any hazard to any property or to any person. Therefore, he prayed for revocation of show cause notice. 4. On 17.05.2024, the Respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, Nanded passed the impugned order and externed the Petitioner from the limits of Nanded district for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner challenged the same before the Respondent No.1 Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. However, on 05.08.2024 the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and thereby confirmed the externment order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner challenged the same before the Respondent No.1 Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. However, on 05.08.2024 the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and thereby confirmed the externment order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on 28.12.2023, the Respondent No.3-Police Inspector, Police Station Vimantal, Nanded issued a notice, wherein it was alleged about registration of Crime No.119/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 120(B), 384, 109, r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and 3/25, 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act against the Petitioner but subsequently offence u/s 201 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3(4) of MCOCA Act, 1999 came to be added. However, the Petitioner was already released on bail in Crime No.119/2022. Though, the Petitioner submitted his reply and explanation dated 10.04.2024, however, the Respondent No.3 failed to consider the same and illegally forwarded the proposal for externment. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further canvassed that after receipt of notice, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 10.04.2024, wherein the Petitioner has specifically stated that only one Crime bearing No. 119/2022 has been registered against the Petitioner and he is already released on bail. Therefore, there is no subjective satisfaction to level the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, however, the Respondent No.2- Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without considering the material available on record that the Petitioner is not a member of any gang and other persons who are named in the externment order are not members of a gang. Therefore, there is no material to comply with the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, hence, impugned orders are illegal and bad in law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submits that the Respondent No.1- Appellate Authority without considering the facts as well as without appreciating the documentary evidence available on record passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 on the ground that Crime No.119/2022 is registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 120(B), 384, 109,201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and 3/25, 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act and Sec. 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3(4) of MCOCA Act, 1999. However, on 27.04.2023 this Court granted bail to the Petitioner on a condition that the Petitioner shall not leave Nanded City without the permission of the Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial. However, the Respondent No.2 failed to consider the said order and passed the impugned order which is illegal and perverse. 8. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the case of Ashraf Shamsher Ali Jagirdar V/s. State of Maharashtra and others; 2016 (1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 504 and Ravindra @ Ravi Harisingh Jadhav V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; 2015 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 813. However, both the cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand because, in both the cases cited by the Petitioner, there was externment from more than one district though the Petitioner’s alleged prejudicial activities were shown in a particular district. 9. The learned APP strongly opposed the petition contending that the due procedure laid down in law has been complied with by the Authorities, so also, principles of natural justice are duly followed. According to the learned APP, on 28.12.2023 the Respondent No.3-Police Inspector, Police Station Vimantal, Nanded issued a notice to the Petitioner and thereafter on 02.04.2024, the Respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, Nanded again issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner and others for submitting an explanation calling upon them to submit their reply as to why the Petitioner and others should not be externed for a period of two years . Accordingly, on 10.04.2024, the Petitioner submitted his reply. However, on 17.05.2024 the Respondent No.2 passed the externment order. The Competent Authority has considered the material available against the Petitioner and passed the order, so also, the Petitioner had approached before the Appellate Authority – Respondent No.1. On 05.08.2024, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order after considering the confidential report and other material available on record as well as series of crimes of registered against the Petitioner. Therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere with the order of externment which was confirmed by the Respondent No.1- Appellate Authority. 10. The learned APP further canvassed that the Respondent- Authorities have passed the impugned orders on the administrative grounds to maintain the peace in the society. Therefore, no interference is called at the hands of this Court as the order of externment is an administrative order. 10. The learned APP further canvassed that the Respondent- Authorities have passed the impugned orders on the administrative grounds to maintain the peace in the society. Therefore, no interference is called at the hands of this Court as the order of externment is an administrative order. In support of these submissions the learned APP placed reliance on Deepak Laxman Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; AIR 2022 SC 1241 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for deciding the Petitions challenging the order of externment passed by the Competent Authority. It is held that for invoking the said provisions there must be objective material on record on the basis of which Competent Authority must record its subjective satisfaction. It is further observed in cited case that even if multiple offences have been registered against an individual that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment. Moreover, there must be satisfying material on record to indicate the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses of their safety and for that reason they are not coming forward to give statement against the externee. 11. In the case of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. V/s. Sanjeev alias Bittoo; AIR 2005 SC 2080 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Courts will be slow in interfering in the matters relating to administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, impugned orders are considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that the concerned authority has sought to invoke provisions of Section 55 and 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Authority while passing the order of externment has considered the Crime No. 119/2022 registered with Vimantal Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 120(B), 384, 109, r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and 3/25, 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently offence u/s 201 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3(4) of MCOCA Act, 1999 added. The said case is registered as Regular Criminal Case RCC No.98/2022. The trial of said offence is pending. The said case is registered as Regular Criminal Case RCC No.98/2022. The trial of said offence is pending. The Petitioner has produced the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court in B.A. No.595/2023 whereby the Petitioner was already released on bail with the following observations which are as under: “the learned APP has gone through the papers and took instructions from the Investigating Officer to verify whether three crimes as mentioned in the order of the Sessions Court were registered against the applicant. After verifying the fact, he states that those crimes were not against the applicant. However, he failed to point out that any crime registered against the applicant except the present crime. In view of the facts, it is doubtful whether the applicant can be arraigned as an accused under MCOC Act and further observed that the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has no satisfactory evidence connecting the accused with the present crime and he was a member of the conspiracy. Considering his past, it would be unjustifiable to keep him behind the bar and the Petitioner shall not leave Nanded City without permission of the Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial.” 13. Since, the Police-Authority has sought invocation of Section 55 of the said Act, therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under: “55. Dispersal of gangs and body of persons. Since, the Police-Authority has sought invocation of Section 55 of the said Act, therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under: “55. Dispersal of gangs and body of persons. Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and in areas in which a Commissioner is appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Superintendent empowered by the State Government that in 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 persons appearing chief men of to to be the leaders such gang or the 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 which in such time as such officer shall prescribe, and not to enter the area for the area 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.” 14. Needless to say that on 28.12.2023, the Respondent No.3- Police Inspector, Vimantal Police Station, Nanded issued a show cause notice on the ground that Crime No. 119/2022 registered against the present Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 120(B), 384, 109, r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and 3/25, 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently offence u/s 201 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3(4) of MCOCA Act, 1999 added. Therefore, it appears that the externment notice dated 28.12.2023 was served upon the Petitioner considering the solitary offence registered against the Petitioner which is registered as Regular Criminal Case RCC No. 98/2022 and trial of said offence is pending on the file of the competent Court. Therefore, it appears that the externment notice dated 28.12.2023 was served upon the Petitioner considering the solitary offence registered against the Petitioner which is registered as Regular Criminal Case RCC No. 98/2022 and trial of said offence is pending on the file of the competent Court. Except this one offence, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner is operating a gang or the Petitioner is a member thereof in order to extern him by invoking provisions of Section 55 of the Act. 15. As far as the order passed by taking aid of Section 56 of the Act is concerned, though it is sought to be contended by learned APP that Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the confidential statements, however, the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Nanded does not show that such statements are taken into account. In any case, perusal of these statements, on the fact of it, indicates that these statements are general in nature. None of the witnesses have claimed any personal knowledge or fear from the Petitioner. Thus, there is no material on record which could be said to be sufficient to justify the order of externment of the Petitioner, which takes away his liberty as an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the case of Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police; (2021) 8 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, Sections 56 to 59 of the Act are intended to prevent lawlessness and deal with class of lawless elements in society who cannot be brought to book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial trial. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for maintenance of law and order. However, the drastic action of externment should be only taken in exceptional cases to maintain the law and order in a locality and or prevent the breach of public tranquility and peace. In Gazi Saduddin V. State of Maharashtra; (2003) 7 SCC 330 , it has been observed that the satisfaction of the authority can be interfered with if the satisfaction recorded is demonstrably perverse, based on no evidence, misleading evidence or no reasonable person could have, on the basis of the materials on record, been satisfied of the expedient necessity of passing an order of externment. 17. In the light of above discussion, orders impugned cannot sustain. 17. In the light of above discussion, orders impugned cannot sustain. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Resultantly, order bearing Outward No. 850/LCB/Section-55/Vimantal-02/2023/Final Order/2607/2023 dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police Nanded and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar in Case No. 68/2024 /GA/ Room-1/Pol- 1/Externment/CR-68 are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'.