1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.110 OF 2010 Pramod alias Balu s/o Champatrao Narwadeage 36 years, occupation Profession (Adocate)r/of Naik Nagar, Near Modern College,Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary (A & S), Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded, Taluka and Dist. Nanded. ..Respondents ----- Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate,instructed by Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the Respondents. Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : February 24, 2010 P. C. 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. With consent, rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally at admission stage. 02. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded on 20.8.2009, externing the petitioner from four Districts, namely, 2 Nanded, Parbhani, Latur and Hingoli. The said order is further confirmed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, in Appeal by present petitioner bearing No. Ext-2009/310/Visha-5, dated 13.1.2010. 03. In the show cause notice dated 23.6.2009 (Exh. I with the petition), it is alleged that five crimes were registered against the petitioner which are as follows. (1) Crime No. 173/04 registered with Police Station, Vazirabad, Nanded, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. (2) Crime No.161/09 with Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded, for offences punishable under Sections 384, 452, 504, 506 and 294 of IPC. (3) NC No.43/09 registered with Rural Police Station, Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 110,117 and 151 of Bombay Police Act. (4) N.C. No.214/08 registered with Rural Police Station, Nanded for offence punishable under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. (5) Crime No.361/09 registered with Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded, under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. 3 04. It is stated in the show cause notice that in spite of registration of above crimes and taking bond of good behaviour, there was no change in the conduct of the petitioner and that there was danger by his activities to the life and property of others. It was, therefore, necessary to give notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from above said districts for a period of two years. Ultimately, by the impugned order, the petitioner was externed from the said four districts for two years. 05. The main objection of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the show cause notice, so also in the impugned order, clearly indicate that those were the allegations regarding acts done at Nanded city and yet, he is externed even from other three districts. There is nothing on record to show that there was any activity done by petitioner in three districts, namely, Parbhani, Latur and Hingoli. 06. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umar Mohammed Malbari vs. K.P. Gaikwad, 1988 (2) Bombay CR 724, observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as follows. 4 "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 vs. 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, 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 5 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 vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal) 3, LIV Bom.L.R. At page 513." 07. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner also relied upon the cases of Ganpat alias Ganesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 510 and Bharat Dhondiba Tarare vs. The Sub Divisional Officer 2007 All MR (Cri.) 3036 in which above said view in the case of Umar Mohammed Malbari (supra) was further reiterated and followed. 08. In the light of above legal position and provisions of law, the externment order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and confirmed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, dated 13.1.2010 is clearly illegal and deserves to be 6 struck down as no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable under the circumstances of the case. 09. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded, externing the petitioner from four Districts i.e. Nanded, Parbhani, Latur and Hingoli, as confirmed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai vide order dated 13.1.2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Writ Petition disposed of. Rule made absolute, accordingly. pnd/criwp110.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)