1 WP 3520.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3520 OF 2010 Mr. Abdul Vafa Hakimulla @ Hajimulla Khan. ... Petitioner. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Ulhasnagar, District – Thane & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. P.D. Salvi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 16th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioner informs to be engaged in business activities within the vicinity of Ambernath and claims to be a law abiding citizen. 4. On 11.6.2010, a notice in terms of Section 59 of Bombay Police Act was issued and served by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division. The Petitioner has filed reply to the same and informed the authorities that the offence referred are of 1992-93 are stale and he was acquitted from such of the offences. Thereafter, the order 2 WP 3520.10.sxw dated 2nd September 2010 came to be passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Ulhasnagar, District Thane, directing externment of the Petitioner from the limits of Mumbai District, Mumbai Suburban District, Thane and Raigad District for a period of 2 years. Challenge to the said order in terms of Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act before the Government in Externment Appeal No.177 of 2010 did not yield available result and consequently, the present Writ Petition. 5. Having gone through the notice in question and the prejudicial activities of the Petitioner, I find that the offences referred are lasted way back to 1992-93 and in those offences the chart indicate that the Petitioner has been acquitted by the Competent Forum. He has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.269 of 2003 and Crime No.41 of 2004 at Ambarnath for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of I.P.C. and for an offences punishable under Section 3(1)10 of S.C.S.T. Act. Both the matters are sub-judiced. 6. Though, the learned APP has referred to the in camera statement of the two witnesses, however, reading the same it does not support to the contention that there was any prosecution faced by the Petitioner based on such illegalities committed by him. The assertion of the two witnesses appears to be in air, made to suit the purpose of externing the Petitioner. The order of externment for a period of two years from the District of Thane, Greater Bombay, Mumbai 3 WP 3520.10.sxw Suburban and Raigad does not fit within the parameter of the powers vested in the authorities concerned as the order of externment from Raigad is excessive and geographically, Raigad District cannot be said in close proximity to Ambernath where the Petitioner resides. There were no cases against the Petitioner in any other area except Ambernath as the notice primarily refers. The survey of these aspects illustrate. The externment order against the Petitioner requires interference being excessive, freezing rights of Petitioner. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)