JUDGMENT : (Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of externment dated 29.7.2024 passed by respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur externing him from Chandrapur District for a period of one year. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner took us through the record and invited our attention to the contents of the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 13.5.2024 and submitted that in the said notice there is no whisper about recording of in-camera statements by respondent No.1 so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that due to apprehension of fear in the minds of witnesses they are not coming forward in public to depose against the petitioner. He submits that on the said ground alone, the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 stands vitiated. 4. Another ground raised by the petitioner is that the offences which are considered by the authority since 2018 to 2023 are stale offences along with prohibitory action dated 23.6.2023 by respondent No.1 while passing the externment order dated 29.7.2024. There is a delay in passing the order and there is no live link between the last offence and the order of externment passed by respondent No.1. Therefore, the externment order is passed on the basis of stale material and no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the authority. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that on the above grounds, the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 stands vitiated. Inasmuch as the requirement of provisions of Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act is concerned, it contemplates that the competent authority, who has initiated the externment proceedings, shall make a reference about the in-camera statements recorded and the gist of the version stated by these witnesses in the show cause notice. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the first place, neither there is a reference of recording of in-camera statements in the show cause notice nor there is a detailed reference or the gist of the allegations stated by the said witnesses in the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the first place, neither there is a reference of recording of in-camera statements in the show cause notice nor there is a detailed reference or the gist of the allegations stated by the said witnesses in the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1. 6. Learned A.P.P. relying upon the original record and also notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur submits that there was a reference in the notice dated 8.11.2023 that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has issued a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act to the petitioner by mentioning all the details in respect of a crime chart and confidential statements. Hence on 29.1.2024 the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer through his Advocate and submitted his say and he was also given an opportunity of hearing and after considering all the material including a crime chart, confidential statements and one preventive action taken against the petitioner, the authority came to the conclusion that due to acts of the petitioner the people are feeling insecure and there is a threat to their life and property. Therefore, respondent No.1 has rightly passed the order externing the petitioner. Hence he submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed. 7. We have gone through the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the petition and the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order of externment. 8. On perusal of the contents of show cause notice which was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner on 13.5.2024, there is no mention of in-camera statements of witnesses recorded by respondent No.1. The contention of the learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that in the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur there is a reference to such in-camera statements but surprisingly the notice dated 8.11.2023 is not placed on record. Learned A.P.P. has not taken pain to place it on record. In notice dated 13.5.2024, which is on record, there is no whisper about recording of the statements of witnesses. Learned A.P.P. has not taken pain to place it on record. In notice dated 13.5.2024, which is on record, there is no whisper about recording of the statements of witnesses. Since the mandate of provisions of Section 56(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act contemplates that there has to be a specific reference of such in-camera statements in show cause notice issued to an externee so as to enable him to file his reply to put-forth his contentions to such a notice. Even upon careful perusal of discussion in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, we find that there is only a passing reference about recording of in-camera statements by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pandharinath Shridhar V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police reported in AIR 1973 SC 630 has observed that it is necessary to make a reference of in-camera statements and gist of such statements so as enable the proposed externee to reply to the show cause notice. The issue raised in this petition is covered by the authoritative pronouncement in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil V/s. Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and another reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1111 . In Yashwant Damodar Patil (supra) the following observations are made in para Nos.3 and 11:- “3. Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act visualises three situations in which the order of externment could be passed by the designated officer. We will, however, ignore, for the purpose of the disposal of this petition, the third type of situation and only analyse the two situations which are covered by clauses (a) and (b) of section 56 (1) of the Act. An order of externment can be passed against a person whose movement or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. That is what is provided in clause (a). The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence. It is so provided in the first part of clause (b) of section 56(1) of the Act. The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence. It is so provided in the first part of clause (b) of section 56(1) of the Act. An order of externment can also be passed against a person if that person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, or Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. This is so provided in the latter part of clause (b) of section 56(1) of the Act. But it is not enough that these conditions alone are satisfied. In addition to this, the designated officer should be of the opinion that 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. 11. Before parting with this judgment, it would not be inappropriate to mention a couple of facts which we have noticed while dealing with orders of externment passed by the authorities in this part of Maharashtra and especially by the authorities in Thane District. While giving notice under section 59 of the Act, the clear distinction between clause (a) and the first part of clause (b) of section 56(1) is not always borne in mind. Vague words mentioning that the petitioner is involved in the activities causing alarm or danger and also in acts of violence, etc., are freely used. Though the law does not require the authorities under the Bombay Police Act to give the details of the activities of the proposed externee, it is still necessary, as required by section 59 of the Act, to give to the proposed externee information about the general nature of the material allegation against him. What the general nature of the material allegation against proposed externee has been explained by the Supreme Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 630 . Some of the orders of externment have been set aside on the ground that the allegations against the proposed externee mentioned in the notices are too vague to enable the proposed externee to represent against the proposed orders of externment. Deputy Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 630 . Some of the orders of externment have been set aside on the ground that the allegations against the proposed externee mentioned in the notices are too vague to enable the proposed externee to represent against the proposed orders of externment. It may also be noted that very often the period during which the prejudicial activities of the proposed externee are committed is also not mentioned. In our opinion, this is absolutely necessary because without the notice of the period with reference to which action is proposed to be taken, the proposed externee obviously cannot defend himself properly.” 10. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, admittedly there is no specific reference about recording of in-camera statements of witnesses by respondent No.1 in the show cause notice dated 13.5.2024 and also there is only a passing reference in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 about recording of in-camera statements by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. 11. The next ground is that there is a delay in passing the externment order and there is no live link between the order passed and the last offence considered while passing the externment order. In this case, offences since 2018 up to 2023 are considered while passing the externment order. The last offence was registered in the year 2023. The prohibitory action was taken on 23.6.2023. Thereafter no offence is registered against the petitioner. The externment order is passed on 29.7.2024. In view of above factual position, respondent No.1 was required to consider all the material while affirming subjective satisfaction. Four crimes which were committed in 2018 and 2023 would not be available for consideration against the petitioner for warranting externment. The crimes committed against the human body alone are not sufficient to order externment. There are ways and means to restrict the conduct and behaviour of a person. Unless and until such resources are exhausted by all such ways and means, the order of externment, in our view, would be the last resort which can be invoked. The show cause notice was issued on 13.5.2024 and the order is passed on 29.7.2024. The first show cause notice, as per the reply of the learned A.P.P., was issued on 8.11.2023. There is a delay of almost 8 months from the date of first notice dated 8.11.2023, which is not placed on record. The show cause notice was issued on 13.5.2024 and the order is passed on 29.7.2024. The first show cause notice, as per the reply of the learned A.P.P., was issued on 8.11.2023. There is a delay of almost 8 months from the date of first notice dated 8.11.2023, which is not placed on record. Therefore, we are of the view that based on the stale material, the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the authority stands vitiated. This fact would, therefore, indicate that there was no live link and since the material is found to be stale, the live link would automatically gets disconnected. Time taken from the date of recording of statements till the passing of order would cause dent to the live link thereby not warranting externment of the petitioner, on the basis of subjective satisfaction arrived at by respondent No.1. 12. On perusal of the statements of confidential witnesses it is seen that the statements are recorded on 25.8.2023 and verified on 22.2.2024. The limitation though starts from the date of recording of statements, it is also seen that they are recorded recently, therefore, there is a delay. 13. Admittedly, there is no reference about recording of in-camera statements of witnesses by respondent No.1 in show cause notice dated 13.5.2024 and there is only a passing reference in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 about recording of in-camera statements by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Hence it is clear that the stale offences are considered while passing the externment order. In the result, writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1).