1 cr-wp-1646-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 1646 OF 2010 Krishna Chandrakant Thorat ..Petitioner Vs. The Principal Secretary, Home Department and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Rahul Kadam Adv. for petitioner Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 11, 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2 Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 2 cr-wp-1646-10 3 The order of externment dated 12.3.2010 passed against him under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. The externment order was passed against the petitioner by the respondent no.2-Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-III. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 26.5.2010 which order has also been challenged. 4 The externment order was naturally preceded by a show cause notice. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be passed against him under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, impugned order came to be passed on 12.3.2010. 5 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in the order of externment there is a reference to CR No. 33 of 2008 of Chinchwad Police Station. However, no details as to the date, time and place and nature of incident pertaining to this C.R. were furnished in the show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to effectively meet the allegations made in respect of the said C.R. 3 cr-wp-1646-10 6 The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as in the show cause notice, there is no reference to any such CR, the externment order can be said to be based on extraneous material and as such it is liable to be struck down. 7 Perusal of the show cause notice shows that there is no reference at all to CR No.33 of 2008 of Chinchwad Police Station. There is no mention of any time, date, place and nature of incident pertaining to CR No. 33 of 2008. 8 A show cause notice is required to be issued to the proposed externee before any externment order is issued, with a view to enable him to meet the allegations made against him in the show cause notice. If the proposed externee is not even informed the material particulars like approximate time of the incident, approximate area and general nature of the incident, this itself is a sufficient ground for quashing the order of externment because it deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him in the show cause notice. This is clearly illegal. Similar view is taken by this Court in a case of Mr. Kishore Durge Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 2023. The show cause notice in the present case does not 4 cr-wp-1646-10 even make a mention of CR No. 33 of 2008. In such case, it can be said that the externment order is based on extraneous material due to which it was not possible for the petitioner to effectively reply to the allegation that he is involved in the said case, hence, the externment order is liable to be struck down. 9 In the result, the petition is allowed. The externment order dated 12.3.2010 passed against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]