WP.2645-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2645 OF 2010 Amol Parshuram Shendge ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent/State. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of externment passed by respondent No.2, he has preferred this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that though the petitioner had filed the appeal against the said order, the application for stay of said order was rejected, and the appeal is still pending as the same has not yet been decided. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the WP.2645-10 - 2 - notice issued to the petitioner itself being an order passed by the externing authority is beyond the scope of the notice and the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said order by filing this writ petition, though the appeal is not yet decided. 3. It is submitted by the learned APP appearing for the respondent State that only 3 cases were shown pending. In the said cases show-cause notice was issued and the said cases are pertaining to the year 2007-2008. Secondly, it is submitted that though the show-cause notice has been issued under S. 56(A) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the order has been passed under S. 56(B) of the said Act. 4. The perusal of the show-cause notice and the impugned order clearly reveals that there is a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record. The learned APP submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Maval, Sub-Division, Pune has admitted the said mistake, and has submitted that it was an inadvertent error. It is well settled position in law that the order of externment cannot be passed on extraneous grounds and cannot be passed beyond the scope of the show- cause notice which is issued. In the present case, though the show-cause notice is issued alleging the violation of S. 56(A) of the Bombay Police WP.2645-10 - 3 - Act, the order is passed under S. 56(B) of the said Act. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set aside. The writ petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). [ V. M. KANADE J.]