S.M. Gavhane JUDGMENT
Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with the following prayer:-
"B. The Externment order passed by the respondent No. 3 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmabad dated 17.01.2017 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal No. CR-02 dated 30.05.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, respondent No. 2 issued notice to him on 21st September, 2016 stating therein that, why externment proceedings should not be initiated against him. In the said proceedings, four offences were mentioned. However, the petitioner was already acquitted of from the said offences even before issuance of such notice. He further submits that, while conducting the proceedings by respondent No. 3, there is no compliance of mandate of provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He further submits that, the petitioner was externed from Nanded, Latur, Hingoli and Parbhani districts by respondent No. 3, however, the offences from which he was already acquitted, were registered with Police Station, Dharmabad. He submits that, the appellate authority relied upon Crime No. 438 of 2014 registered with Police Station, Dharmabad under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 9th October, 2016, though the said crime is not mentioned in the show-cause notice. He submits that, though the appellate authority partially modified the order passed by respondent No. 3 and made it enforceable restricting to Nanded district only, nevertheless, the other legal aspects, as agitated by the petitioner, have not been considered by the said authority. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service the exposition of law in the cases of Mahesh Bajrang Dalvi Vs. The State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/1613/2016 : 2017 All MR (Cri) 777, Balaji S/o. Ganpati Chame Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others MANU/MH/0029/2017 : 2017 All MR (Cri) 719, and Sopan Satappa Kore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others MANU/MH/0103/2017 : 2017 All MR (Cri) 764, and submits that the Petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent/State, relying upon the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the impugned orders, submits that, the authorities have adhered to the proper procedure and have passed the appropriate orders.
5. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto and also the original record maintained by the office of Respondent No. 3, and the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the impugned orders.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner was acquitted of from four offences even prior to issuance of the show-cause notice by the respondents deserves acceptance, in as much as, there is no discussion in the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 about the contention of the petitioner that, he was acquitted from all those offences mentioned in the show-cause notice even prior to........