S.S. SHINDE, J
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 4th September, 2017 passed by Respondent No.3 and the order dated 17th February, 2018
passed by Respondent No.2, whereby he has been externed from the boundaries of Aurangabad District for the period of one year.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 2nd August, 2017, he has received show cause notice from the Assistant Police Commissioner, Cantonment
Area, Aurangabad. Thereafter on 9th August, 2017 the Petitioner has filed his detailed reply/ explanation to the said notice. It is the case of the
Petitioner that recently he has shifted to Padegaon locality and since last three months only he is residing there. The Petitioner has worked as driver
on tourist vehicle since last thirteen years. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is not having any criminal antecedents, inspite of that the police subÂ‐
inspector, Chhawani police station gave false report against him. On the basis of said report, notice under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951 (for short ""the Act of 1951"") has been issued, which is bogus, false and baseless.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 4th September, 2017, Respondent No.3 Â Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad passed an order
thereby externing the Petitioner for the period of one year from entire Aurangabad District. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the
Petitioner has approached to Respondent No.2 Â the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, and Aurangabad by way of filing appeal.
Thereafter on 17th February, 2018, Respondent No.2 has rejected the said appeal filed by the Petitioner. Hence this Petition is filed by the Petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are unjust, illegal and contrary to the
provisions of law. Both the authorities below ought to have considered that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and no criminal record. It is
submitted that the Petitioner is law abiding and peace keeping person and hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is
submitted that the Petitioner is project affected person. His land was taken in possession by the Government for construction of ""VandeÂMataram
Hall"" and ""Haj House"" and the Petitioner was given the place at Padegaon and he shifted there hardly about 15 days prior to the alleged incident. All
these aspects have been completely ignored by both the authorities.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that both the offences mentioned in the notice and impugned orders are lodged by one and the same person,
namely, Najir Khan Kasir Khan, within two days and except these two false complaints, there are no criminal antecedents against the Petitioner.
Hence it is prayed that the Petition may be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the exposition of law in the
cases of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra 1973 Mh.L.J. 413, Rajendra Karbhari Kale vs.
State of Maharashtra and others 2017(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 479 and in the case of Praful Bhausaheb Yadav vs. Shri K.K. Pathak and others
2013 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 1652.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent  State, relying upon the averments in the affidavitÂinÂreply and the reasons
assigned by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the impugned orders, submits that the authorities, after adhering to the procedure prescribed under the
provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951 have rightly externed the Petitioner from the boundaries of Aurangabad District.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent â€" State at length. With their
able assistance we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, reply filed by the Respondents, and original record of
the case maintained by the office of the Respondents. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the showÂcause notice issued by the Assistant Police
Commissioner, Cantonment Area, Aurangabad to the Petitioner, it appears that in the said notice it is mentioned that the activities of the Petitioner are
causing danger and harm to the persons in the vicinity. In the said notice, it is mentioned that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against the Petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. There is also
reference to the contents of the inÂcamera statements of three witnesses in the proposal for externment and also in the notice.
9. Upon careful perusal of the original documents, it appears that inÂcamera statement of the witnesses have been recorded and their signatures are
taken. Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order on 4th September, 2017. After going through the record, we have noticed that Respondent
No.3 has recorded subjective satisfaction that the facts given in the statement of witnesses and apprehension expressed is true and reasonable. Upon
careful perusal of the contents of the said order, it appears that before passing the impugned order of externment the procedure as contemplated
under the provisions of the Act of 1951 has been adhered to.
10. Upon careful perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it appears that both the offences which are relied by the appellate authority
are of the year 2017. Therefore, there is live link between the offences registered against the Petitioner and the initiation of externment proceedings.
There is sufficient material on record including inÂcamera statements of the witnesses recorded by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Cantonment
Area, Aurangabad. Perusal of the contents of the said statements would clearly reveal that the activities of the Petitioner are causing danger and
alarm to the public order.
11. Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951, reads thus:
56. Removal of persons about to commit offence
(1) ....
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or
an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of
such officer 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, or ....""Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [Underlines are added]
12. Considering the aforesaid provisions carefully, the order of externment can be passed against a person whose movements or acts are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property as provided in subclause (a) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. 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 as provided in clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. 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. But in addition to the above, the concerned Officer, who is dealing with an externment
proceedings, should be of the opinion that the 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.
13. Perusal of the reasons recorded by the Respondent authorities reveals that, there is no room for doubt that the activities of the Petitioner are
causing danger and alarm to the public order. There are number of incidents which are quoted in the impugned orders, about using force or violence
by the Petitioner against general public. The contention of the counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the order of externment is excessive, in as
much as the offences are registered in Chhawani police station and the Petitioner is externed from the jurisdiction of Aurangabad is concerned, the
said argument cannot be countenanced for the reasons recorded by the authorities while arriving at the subjective satisfaction to extern the Petitioner.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, The State of Maharashtra
 1973 (1) S.C.C. 372 , in Para 15 to 17, held thus:
15. As regards the last point, it is primarily for the externing authority to decide how best the externment order can be made effective, so as to subÂ‐
serve its real purpose. How long, within the statutory limits of two years fixed by Section 58, the order shall operate and to what territories, within the
statutory limitations of Section 56 it should extend, are matters which must depend for their decision on the nature of the data which the authority is
able to collect in the externment proceedings. There are cases and cases and, therefore, no general formulation can be made that the order of
externment must always be restricted to the area to which the illegal activities of the externee extend. A larger area may conceivably have to be
comprised within the externment order so as to isolate the evidence from his moorings.
16. An excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the
circumstances of the case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur is an instance in
point where an externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The Activities of
externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as the districts of Sholapur,
Satara and Poona. These areas are far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed but two supposedly illegal acts. The
exercise of the power was, therefore, arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment.Â
17. But Balu Shivling's case furnishes no analogy in the instant matter. A vast city like Bombay presents its own peculiar problems of law and
order. It is an evergrowing industrial complex and the city has spread its arms far and wide. A fair proportion of its teeming population is mobile,
with large multitudes streaming in and out of the city in the pursuit of their daily avocations. An order of externment restricted to the particular area
chosen by the externee for his unlawful activities and to a small periphery thereof would in such circumstances fail of its true purpose. It would be
impossible to secure obedience to such an order and its enforcement would raise practicable problems which would impair the efficacy of the order.Â
An order in the instant case if restricted, say, to the areas within the jurisdiction of the Ville Parle Police Station and its periphery would not serve its
purpose. Rather than solving a problem of law and order, it would create yet one more.
15. In the case of Balu Shivling Dambe vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur1 969 Mh.L.J. 487, referred in the Judgment cited supra, the
Petitioner therein was externed from three Districts, namely Sholapur, Satara and Poona, though all the alleged activities of the externee therein were
confined to the city of Pandharpur and therefore in the facts of that case the Court held that the order of externment was excessive. However, in the
present case the Petitioner has been externed only from Aurangabad District and not from other adjoining Districts. Therefore, keeping in view the
statements of the witnesses recorded inÂcamera and other material on record, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to cause interference in
the impugned orders.Â
16. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves to cause interference in the impugned orders. Hence the Writ Petition stands
rejected. Â
