1 w.p. no. 2981 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2981 OF 2010 Ravhshankar @ Lallansing Brijraj Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 15, 2010 P.C. 1. Petitioner challenges his externment from Bombay City, Bombay suburban area and districts of Thane and Raigad. He was served with a show cause notice dated 19th April. 2010 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from this area on account of his anti social activities. The show cause notice makes reference to as many as 9 cases registered against him and the in- camera statements in connection with three instances recorded by the police. After the show cause notice, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wagle Estate, Thane passed externment order dated 20th July, 2010. The petitioner challenged the order by 2 w.p. no. 2981 of 2010 preferring appeal before the Principal Secretary, (Appeal and Suraksha) Mantralaya, Mumbai. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 13.9.2010, upholding the externment order. 2. The complaints referred to in the show cause notice relate to the period 2000 to 2010. It has been contended that the complaints of the year 2000 to 2003 being stale complaints, could not have been taken into consideration by the authorities to extern the petitioner. As regards in-camera statements recorded by the police, it is alleged that these are false statements made by got up witnesses. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complaints at Sr. Nos. 3 to 9 are by one person which would mean that it is a private dispute and hence cannot affect security of the society as such. It has also been contended that the order of externment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority is vague in as much as it does not indicate specific consideration of the material alleged against the Petitioner. 3. Though the complaints at Sr. nos. 3 to 9 are by the same person, the fact that during the period of four years, there are as many as 7 complaints filed by the person against the petitioner cannot be ignored. The complaints at Item Nos. 1 and 2 are by 3 w.p. no. 2981 of 2010 the different persons. Since the cases related to those complaints are still pending, the respondents have rightly taken into account these complaints against the petitioner. It is seen from the show cause notice that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with all these complaints on 1st May, 2000, 8th October, 2003, 13th December,2006, 9th April, 2010 and 18th October, 2010 and has been subsequently released on bail. The in-camera statements recorded by the police refer to the incidence of October, 2009 and November, 2009. These statements allege that the petitioner had threatened the deponents with weapons, assaulted them and had also stolen money from them. These persons out of fear of the Petitioner did not file any complaint against the petitioner. The filing of the various complaints against petitioner, his arrests in the cases and his release on bail has not been disputed. In these circumstances, I find no merit whatsoever in the challenge to the externment order. Though the two orders by themselves do not consider each complaint made against the petitioner by making specific reference the two orders read with show cause notice indicate sufficient material to support the order. Hence, petition is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)