SM 1 7.wp.1921.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1921 OF 2011 Harshal @ Babulal Vilas Gadade ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Javed R. Shaikh for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd June, 2011 thereby externing the petitioner from Shirur and Haveli tahasil Pune, and Shribonda and Parner tahasil Nagar for a period of one year and the order dated 30th June, 2011 thereby dismissing the appeal. 3. While issuing notice, the contention of the Petitioner that though the persons, against whom serious charges are leveled in the C. R. No. 337 of 2009, no proceedings are initiated against them and only the petitioner has singly been roped in, was recorded. 4. In spite of notice, no affidavit has been filed so as to deny the said allegation and such the said allegation is SM 2 7.wp.1921.11 incontroverted. 5. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the show cause notice dated 18th September, 2010 is for an alleged offence which was allegedly committed in the year 2009, whereas, the order of externment of the petitioner has been passed on 3rd June, 2011. It can, thus, be seen that the petitioner is sought to be externed for an alleged offence which is committed on 26th October, 2009. In sofar as the crime no. 15 of 2020 is concerned, it can not be of such a nature to attract the provisions of externment. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the petitioner is sought to be externed on 3rd June, 2011 for an offence which is committed on 26th October, 2009. It can, thus, be seen that there is a gap of almost one year and eight months between the alleged act of the petitioner and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. As such, it can be seen that there is no nexus with the alleged activities of the petitioner and the impugned order of externment. The petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)