JUDGMENT
Kurdukar, J.
1. This writ petition must succeed only on the short ground that the authority which has passed the externment order has taken into account extraneous circumstances and the material which were not the subject matter of the show cause notice dt. 6-11-1985.
2. The petitioner is an externee who has filed this writ petition challenging the externment order dt. 29-4-86 Ex. ‘B’ which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dt. 28-7-86. The show cause notice at Exh. ‘A’ states :
“Following Cogn. & Non-Cognizable offences registered against you at Ulhasnagar Police Station.”
Thereafter in a tabular form a reference to various criminal cases pending against the petitioner has been made. At the end of the notice it is stated :
“That the witnesses to your above described acts and movements are not willing to come forward and depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons in that they apprehend to the safety of their person or property, if they do so.”
3. Mr. Chitnis is right in submission that the petitioner was never called upon to give his explanation save and except in respect of these four criminal cases which are filed and pending against him. Mr. Chitnis drew our attention to the return filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and in particular he pointed out to us the averments contained in para 3. The material averments are to the following effect :
“The Petitioner has created a terror in the locality, and therefore, the witnesses or the victims are not willing to come forward to lodge complaint or to depose against him in public as they fear threat to their lives. I say that merely the case is pending against him and the prosecution had no occasion to produce witnesses, is not the only test to apprehend the apprehension of the members of the public. I say that the victims or the witnesses are even not willing to come forward to make grievance against the Petitioner by lodging complaint against him or give any evidence in public, is found from the statements of the witnesses taken in camera. I say that the registration of non-cognizable offences/complaints against the Petitioner was only one of the consideration to consider the conduct of the Petitioner.”
Relying upon these averments in the affidavit, Mr. Chitnis submitted that the 1st respondent has taken into account certain other material in addition to the material in, connection with four cases referred to in the show cause notice and since this material was not disclosed to the petitioner either in the show cause notice or at the time of hearing, but has been taken into consideration while reaching the subjective satisfaction. This procedural flaw he contends has vitiated the impugned order. We find considerable substance in this contention. It is well settled that whatever material is being relied upon by the authority issuing the show cause notice and/or hearing the externment proceedings, he must disclose in the show-cause notice the broad features of the material. Mr. Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor, was unable to persuade us to uphold the externment order.
4. In our opinion, the impugned order is clearly illegal as the 1st respondent has considered and relied upon the extraneous material which was not referred to in the show cause notice. The impugned orders of externment passed by the authorities below suffer from vice of procedural illegality and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (i) and (iv).
5. Rule made absolute.