even though the Petitioners have challenged the legality of the impugned Orders on several grounds, the Petitioners rely only upon few of them. In this regard, the learned counsel submits that, no finding is recorded in the impugned orders that, the Petitioners had formed a gang or group or body of persons engaged in continuous criminal activity so as to cause alarm or danger to the members of public. That, Section 55 of the Act applied to a gang or body of persons i.e. the leader and all the members of the gang and not to an individual member thereof. Yet, the impugned ‘Order of Externment’ is contrary to said Section 55. Secondly, that the five crimes considered against the Petitioners were registered in Tilaknagar Police Station only. However, the Petitioners have been externed from the entire limits of Mumbai City, its Suburbs and District Thane for a period of 18 months. The impugned ‘Order of Externment’, however, does not show any such reason to cover said area. Thirdly, there is no live link between the first two crimes in the table and the ‘Order of Externment’; that the 3rd , 4th and 5th crimes are against an individual. Therefore, said crimes cannot be considered to base the impugned orders. As such, both the impugned orders lack objective as well as subjective satisfaction to record the same, which is unconstitutional. He submits that, in short, no material whatsoever existed which could be said to be sufficient for answering the
