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 WRIT PETITION NO.1909 OF 2007 Zhakir Hussein @ Bittu Mohd. Iqbal Khan .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Naveen Chomal for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12th August 2008. : 12th August 2008. : 12th August 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed in exercise of powers under section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order of externment has been confirmed in appeal with a modification. The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an order directing that the petitioner shall be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Greater Bombay, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad. The modification made by the Appellate Authority is that the order of externment will be confined to Greater Bombay, Navi Mumbai and Thane districts. 3. The challenge to the order of externment is on : 2 : 2 : 2 : various grounds. The main challenge is on the ground that the order of externment was excessive in the sense that the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner were confined to the jurisdiction of one particular police station in Mumbai and the order of externment relates to three revenue districts. It is submitted that the order of externment was found to be excessive by the Appellate Authority and therefore the same ought to have been quashed. The learned A.P.P supported the impugned orders by submitting that subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority on the basis of material available on record and therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. This Court in the case of Ganpat Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others (2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 2717) held that mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district. On plain reading of the show cause notice and the allegations made therein show that all the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner have been confined to the area falling within the jurisdiction of R.A.K Marg police station in Mumbai. Perusal of the order of externment shows that there are no reasons assigned for extending the order of externment to Thane : 3 : 3 : 3 : and Raigad districts. It must be incidentally noted that in large number of externment orders passed by the police authorities in Mumbai it is stated that Navi Mumbai is a district. The said orders have been passed in ignorance of the fact that Navi Mumbai is not at all a separate revenue district but it forms pat of Thane taluka of Thane district. This is not to say that the order is bad in law on this ground but this is the error committed by the authorities in Mumbai practically in every case. 5. Thus, on plain reading of the order of externment there is no ground mentioned therein for extending the order of externment to two other districts. Infact the Appellate Authority has modified the order by confining the order of externment to Greater Bombay, Navi Mumbai and Thane districts. Thus, the Appellate Authority itself accepted that the order of externment could not have been extended to Raigad district. The order of the Appellate Authority thus proceeds on the footing that the order of externment was excessive. 6. An order of externment affects or curtails a liberty of an individual which is guarantied by the Constitution of India. Therefore, once it is found that the order of externment is excessive, it becomes illegal : 4 : 4 : 4 : and there is no scope to modify the order. Once it is found that the order is excessive, it shows non application of mind by the authority. Once order of externment is found to be illegal, the same has to be set aside. As stated earlier, in this case the Appellate Authority itself found that the order was excessive. Only on this ground the petition must succeed. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: . Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). (A.S.Oka, J)