( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 713 OF 2009 Aslam Gafur Shaikh .. Petitioner Aged. 42 years, Occ. Social Work, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Hon’ble Minister, Home Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kopargaon Division, Kopargaon, Camp at Shirdi, Dist. Ahmednagar. Shri S.B. Jadhav h/f. Shri P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondents. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 10.12.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order of externment whereby he is externed from six districts i.e. Ahmednagar, Nasik, Pune, Dhule, Beed and Aurangabad, for a period of one year as per order passed by respondent No. 3- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, on 09.03.2009, which order is further confirmed in Appeal No. 2009/106/VISHA-5 decided on 15.06.2009 by the Principal Secretary, (A & S). It is clear from the show cause notice, copy of which is produced at Exh. “A” and the externment order, copy of which is produced at Exh. “E”, that it is alleged that present petitioner was charged of committing riots and other offences at Kopargaon or around that town. Four crimes mentioned are all ( 3 ) registered at Kopargaon. The statements of witnesses A-1 and A-2 recorded were also in respect of crimes committed at Kopargaon. Said externment order was confirmed in appeal and being aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Adv. Shri S.B. Jadhav h/f. Adv. Shri P.S. Dighe for the petitioner and A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for the respondents. 4. A.P.P. Mrs. Khekale states that pending this proceeding, present petitioner committed four more crimes and in support of that she produced report of Police Inspector, Kopargaon Police Station along with copies of F.I.R. It is clear from the copies of F.I.R. that all those four offences were registered at Kopargaon police station. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner produced copy of judgment in S.C.C. No. 279 of 2009 decided on 11.08.2009 by II Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, whereby he acquitted the present petitioner of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. The main contention ( 4 ) raised in this matter by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that all the offences registered against the present petitioner were from Kopargaon town. They are registered at Kopargaon police station and under the circumstances, the externment from six districts is clearly excessive order and in support of it he relied upon various authorities. 6. The law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Umar Mohammed Malbari V/s. K.P. Gaikwad & Another, 1988 (2) Bom.C.R.724, in para 7 and 8 is as follows :- “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 ( 5 ) 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, 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.” 7. The above-said law is consistently followed by this Court thereafter in the cases of Silva @ Gora Silva Ayanar Arjun V/s. Nawal Bajaj & Anr., 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 331 ( 6 ) and Gunwanta Gajanan Khandekar V/s. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors., 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 329, Koshor Rajaram Durge V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Others., 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.481 and Punjaji Durga Gaikwad V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2001 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R.611. 8. In view of the law laid down by this Court that the order of externment should be restricted to the area in which the activities are going on. The externment from six districts is definitely an excessive order and liable to be struck down, because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It is also made clear that the Court sitting in writ jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to correct an excessive order passed by the authority concerned. 9. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The externment orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner passed on 09.03.2009, as confirmed by the Principal Secretary (A & S), in Appeal No. EXT-2009/106/VISHA-5 dated 15.06.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) 10. Rule made absolute and the petition is accordingly disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crwp713.09