1 wp 3329 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITOIN NO. 3329 OF 2010 Prakash Dharma Gaikwad ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rahul Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. 2) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of externent dated 12th March, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune, which was confirmed by respondent no. 1 appellate authority by its order dated 9th November, 2010. The main ground of challenge to the order of externment and the order of the appellate authority is that though 2 wp 3329 of 2010 show cause notice dated 21st January, 2010 issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the Petitioner related to the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, allegeding existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged or is about to engage in connection with the offence or offences punishable under Chapter 16 and 17 of the I.P.C. and that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner, the order of externment passed relates not just to section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act but also to Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. 3) The impugned order a copy of which is annexed at Annexure "A" confirms the complaint by the petitioner. The order after giving list of the complaints pending against the petitioner under Chapter 16 and 17 of I.P.C. states that evidence was produced before the externing authority to show that his movement or acts are either causing harm or danger to individual or property or there is likelihood of such harm or danger tobe caused. Thus though the basis of the show cause notice was the allegation relating to section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, the externing authority expressed satisfaction of the material relating to section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay 3 wp 3329 of 2010 Police Act also. The order therefore, is patently illegal. The appellate authority has unfortunately not considered this aspect of the matter and has confirmed the order of externment. 5. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 and the appellate oder dated 9th November, 2010 are set aside. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)