( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2009 Anil s/o. Santram Choure .. Petitioner Age. 39 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Padoli, Tq. Parli (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through Secretary, Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. Shri C.T. Kale h/f. Shri M.V. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.12.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) 2. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambejogai, thereby externing the petitioner from four districts, namely, Beed, Jalna, Parbhani and Latur. It is alleged that there were following three offences pending against the petitioner. They are as under :- Sr. No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections Remark 1. Parali city 41/1998 147, 148, 149, 323, 427 I.P.C. Pending 2. Parali city 133/2005 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. & 4/425 Arms Act Pending 3. Parali city 134/2005 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. & 4/25 Arms Act. Pending 3. The learned advocate Shri Kale for the petitioner has produced on record judgment in R.C.C. No. 155 of 1998, decided on 30.04.2009, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali Vaijnath, whereby the appellant who was accused No.5 came to be acquitted along with other accused persons. So far as offence under C.R. No. 133 of 2005 is concerned, certified copy is produced to show that police have sent “B” summary. So, there remains only one crime which is pending ( 3 ) and which is C.R. No. 134 of 2005. Moreover, Adv. Shri Kale also relied upon observations of this Court in the case of Umar Mohammed Malbari V/s. K.P. Gaikwad & Another, 1988 (2) Bom.C.R.724. The following observations are made by the Division Bench in para 7 and 8 :- “7. In our judgment, there is considerable merit in the contention of Shri Mohite and the same will have to be accepted. If the activities indulged in by the petitioner were restricted within the Taluka of Bhiwandi within the Thane Commissionerate, the order of externing the petitioner out of the Raigad and Nasik Districts which has within them Taluka places at a distance of more than 100 miles will undoubtedly be an excessive order and an excessive order has necessarily to be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted within than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In the case of (Balu Shivling Dombe V/s. The Divisional Magistrate) 1, reported in 71 Bom.L.R. At page 79 which case was cited with approval in the case of (Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police) 2, reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. Page 630, on the facts of that case the externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as the districts of Sholapur, Satara, and Poona. These areas were far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed his illegal acts. The exercise of the power was, therefore, arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment was quashed. 8. ................... The High Court, ( 4 ) when it issues the high prerogative writ of certiorari, it directs the judicial Tribunal against which it is acting to transmit its record to the Court and if necessary to quash the order which the Tribunal has passed. It must not be forgotten that in issuing the writ this Court is not acting as a Court of appeal. It is exercising supervisory powers conferred upon it, and those powers are exercised by means of issuing high prerogative writs. But the power and jurisdiction of the Court is limited and the same cannot extend to the powers of an Appellate Court. This Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions has or has not acted without jurisdiction or whether in the exercise of jurisdiction it has acted in excess of jurisdiction. If it has acted in excess of jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of this Court is to quash the order passed in excess of jurisdiction. There the power of the High Court stops. It has no power to go further and to correct an excessive order passed by the authority concerned. (Mohamed Usman V/s. Labour Appellate Tribunal) 3, LIV Bom.L.R. At Page 513.” 4. In this case there is no justification for externing the petitioner from other than Beed district, because no offence appears to have been committed outside Parali city. So, in this view of the matter relying on the ratio of Division Bench, which was subsequently followed by this Court in Silva @ Gora Silva Ayanar Arjun V/s. Nawal Bajaj & Anr., 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 331 and Gunwanta Gajanan Khandekar V/s. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors., 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 329, this petition is allowed. The order ( 5 ) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 22.09.2009, externing the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crwp1052.09