- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 Madhukar Sudam Kadu ...Petitioner vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Others ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Thakur for the petitioner Ms S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service. In this petition, the challenge is to the order of externment passed by the first respondent in exercise of powers under section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act,1951. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order of externment, extraneous material has been considered by the first respondent. The second submission is that the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner are confined to limits of Nhava Sheva Police station in District Raigad, but the order of externment relates to Districts of Mumbai, Mumbai suburban, Thane and Raigad and therefore the order of externment is excessive. The learned A.P.P. supported the impugned order by referring to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and submitted that no interference is called for. She pointed out that in Appeal the order of externment has been restricted to districts of Thane and Raigad. - 2 - 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. My attention was invited to the order of externment dated 28th May 2008 passed by the first respondent. In the said order the first respondent has relied upon in-camera statements of the three witnesses. Perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner shows that there is absolutely no reference to the in-camera statements of three witnesses which are referred to and relied upon in the order of externment. Thus, the order of externment is based on the extraneous material which could not have been considered by the first respondent. Only on this ground, the order of externment is rendered illegal and therefore, it is not necessary to consider the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Hence I pass the following order : i) Impugned order of externment is quashed and set aside. ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE