those cases is not noted. Patil, for instance, has been acquitted in all cases except for one that is still pending. For the other Petitioners, the criminal cases are old, ranging from 2008 to 2011. In most of these, those Petitioners have been granted bail. In others, they have, after the issuance of the show cause notices, been acquitted. But, viewed from any angle, none of those cases are so recent as to warrant the extreme action of externment. In any event, in his submission, a pending criminal case can never form the basis of an externment order. The appellate authority has only noted the want of “improvement” in the behaviour of the Petitioners despite “preventive action” and, on this basis, the appellate authority has concluded that the show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Externment Order under appeal were unambiguous. The reference in the impugned Appellate Order to in-camera statements shows, Mr. Kotwal says, a total non-application of mind since it was pointed out that the show-cause notice/s had no reference to these. The in-camera statements relied on by both authorities are without the requisite particulars of date, time and place of alleged incidents. In any event, the show cause notices of 1st June 2011 to the Petitioners other than Patil do not mention in-camera witness statements at all; these come for the first time in the externment order.
