1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2010 Gorakh Pandurang Mare ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Jayant Bordeskar i/b. Mr.Avinash Kamkhedkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 31, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State. 2 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune, dated 26th February, 2009. By the said order, the competent authority was pleased to direct that the 2 petitioner should be externed from Pune, Solapur, Satara, Ahmednagar and Raigad Districts. 3 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order is excessive since he has been asked not to enter the said five districts though in the show cause notice, no reference has been made to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner in the said districts. It is submitted that therefore, this is a clear violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and therefore, on that ground alone, the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4 The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has approached this court directly without exhausting an alternate remedy of appeal which is available to the petitioner. 5 In my view, the objection raised by the learned APP regarding maintainability of this 3 petition cannot be accepted. It is well settled position in law that if there is a violation of fundamental right, it is not necessary for the petitioner to first exhaust alternate remedy and then approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case though the petitioner has not preferred the appeal before the appropriate authority, he has approached this court complaining of violation of fundamental rights more particularly, Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In my view, therefore, this petition is maintainable. 6 In my view, there is some substance in the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Externing Authority is based on extraneous consideration particularly, though there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had committed any prejudicial act in the other districts from which he is externed, yet in the order he has been externed from five 4 districts for a period of two years. The impugned order, therefore, is passed beyond the scope of the show cause notice and on that ground alone, the said order is liable to be quashed. Since this court has no power to correct the order passed by Externing Authority, the order itself, therefore, will have to be quashed. 7 In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th February, 2009 passed by respondent no.1- DCP Zone I, Pune, is quashed and set aside. 8 Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)