1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2010 Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Mahboob ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. C.V. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondents. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 27 th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission in view of the nature of the order which is subject matter of challenge and the short question involved therein. The petitioner has been externed vide the impugned order rendered under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. His appeal has been dismissed by the Principal Secretary of the State Government. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 3. The petitioner alleges that the material on record is totally insufficient to infer that he is being at large likely to cause 2 any impediment in the proceedings of the criminal cases. He would submit that out of the five matters shown to be instituted against him, two are non-cognizable offences and rest of three are yet subjudice. He would further submit that there is no conviction at his discredit and he has been externed at the instance of his business rivals. He would further submit that his participation in the politics is one of the reason as to why the proceedings were initiated against him. He would allege that the action of externment from Aurangabad District is malafide. 4. It is pertinent to notice that no reply affidavit is filed by the respondent. The avernments in the Petition have remained, therefore, uncontroverted. 5. The clinching question is whether the externment of the petitioner is supported by any tangible material and is within the fore corners of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The requirement of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act contemplates existence of reasonable material to believe that the person against whom such proceedings are pending, such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abatement of any such 3 offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the saftey of their person or property. It is well settled that mere pendency of some criminal cases by itself can not be a ground for externment of the person. The material on record must be sufficient to make a prudent and reasonable person to believe that externment is warranted due to the reasonable apprehension about the nefarious activities of such person. It is not necessary to elaborately consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the notice served on him vide Exhibit `B' (P-20) does not satisfy particulars of material available against him. The notice dated 23rd March, 2010 purports to show general allegations against the petitioner. It is alleged that he indulges in demanding money to public members on road during night time and if such amount is not paid to him then he indulges in forcible snatching away the money. It is also alleged that he used to threaten the public members and was likely to continue the activities. Therefore, openly the public members are not coming forward to file complaint against him. 6. In the absence of any particular material with reference to the criminal case number and the details of the 4 offences alleged against him, the omnibus allegations in the show cause notice can not be regarded as sufficient material. In any case, though the subsequent order shows the details of pending prosecution yet the very foundation of the proceedings appears to be shaky. The petitioner was not given due opportunity to know the exact reason by giving him due show cause notice with specification of the criminal acts committed by him or possible danger posed due to his presence at Aurangabad. He gave elaborate explanation to the notice. It appears that the petitioner was a member of the Vigilance Committee of the area which falls within the jurisdiction of Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad. The impugned orders show that because there are five cases pending against the petitioner, it was inferred that he was indulging in threating the public members and used to indulge in the criminal activities in the area of Jinsi locality. 7. In "Mohamad Sajjid Iqbal @ Sk. Imam V/s State of Maharashtra" { 2003 Bom C.R. (Cri) 1381}, a Single Judge of this High Court held that mere vague allegations made in the show cause notice pertaining to likelihood of breach of peace and public order will not be enough material to pass the externment order. The appropriate grounds must be stated in the show-cause notice which is germen to the proceedings. The learned A.P.P. submits 5 that the first notice was issued on 21.02.2010 and the notice appears to have been given in respect of acts against three witnesses, whose identity was not disclosed. As stated before, two of the offences alleged against the petitioner were of non- cognizable nature, two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and one was under investigation. In absence of any conviction to the discredit of the petitioner, it is difficult to say that his presence in the society is likely to cause breach of peace. 8. The externment of the petitioner appears to have been ordered though the material on record is not sufficient to warrant such action against him. Consequently, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment is set aside. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp847.10