1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1181 OF 2010 Mahesh Bhagwan Patil ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1182 OF 2010 Ketan Harishchandra Patil ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mrs.V.R. Raje for Petitioners Mrs. P.P. Bhosale -APP for State ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 5TH MAY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioners are challenging the order of externment dated 26.11.2009 and the order passed in appeal confirming the said order dated 9.4.2009 whereby the Petitioners have been externed from 5 districts for a period of six months. Show Cause 2 Notice was issued on 18.9.2009. In the said show cause notice, two incidents have been mentioned and it was further stated that three witnesses have given in- camera statements in which they have alleged that the Petitioners had threatened them and they are causing disturbance in the said locality. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the orders are excessive inasmuch as though the show cause notice mentions that the Petitioners had committed illegal acts in four districts, in the impugned order they have been externed from five districts i.e. also from Pune. It is submitted that though reliance is placed on three in-camera statements no particulars have been given of two in-camera statements of the two witnesses. Thirdly it is submitted that though it is mentioned in the notice that the Petitioners are likely to create disturbance in Ramzan, Navratri and Vidhansabha Election. It is submitted that Ramzan, Navratri and Vidhansabha Election are already over by the time the impugned order was passed and there is non-application of mind in passing the said orders on the part of the Externing Authority. 5. The learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed this submissions and submitted that so far as in-camera statement is concerned, one of the witnesses 3 have given details of the illegal activities of the Petitioners and same were reiterated by the other two witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that the said order has been confirmed. 6. In my view, there is some substances in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. There is no reference of any alleged prejudicial activities by the Petitioners in Pune District, in the order of externment, the Petitioners have been externed from Pune District. On this ground alone, in my view, the impugned order has to be quashed. In several judgments passed by the Apex Court and this Court, it has been held that the impugned order of externment should not be beyond the scope of the show cause notice which is issued. Since admittedly the Petitioners have not committed any prejudicial activities in District Pune, there was no reasons for the Authority to pass an order of externment against the Petitioners in respect of Pune District. Since the Court is not in a position to correct the order passed by the Externing Authority, there is no other alternate remedy but to quash the entire order by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 7. Both the petitions are allowed. Impugned orders of exterment dated 26.11.2009 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 9.4.2009 are quashed and set aside. Petitions are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)