1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1385 OF 2009 Raashid Fayyaz Khan Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents R.D.Suryawanshi for petitioner. Miss A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard earlier. The challenge in this petition is to an order of externment passed under the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). An order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 18th December 2008 directing that the petitioner shall be externed from the districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai, Raigad and Nashik for a period of two years. An appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority. The main submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the prejudicial activities alleged 2 against the petitioner are confined to an area falling within two police stations of Bhivandi, Taluka Bhivandi, District Thane but the order of externment relates to the districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai, Raigad and Nashik. He submitted that the impugned order is clearly excessive. The learned APP supported the impugned order by pointing out that the order of externment need not be confined to the area within which the prejudicial activities are carried out by the petitioner. The learned APP states that no interference is called for in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner. The learned APP also submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been modified by the appellate authority by reducing the period of externment to six months and by confining the order of externment to Thane, Raigad and Nashik districts. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. An order of externment affects the liberty of an individual. Once it is found that the order of externment is excessive, it is obvious that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the externing authority is vitiated by non application of mind. The impugned order of the appellate authority shows that the appellate authority has excluded the districts of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Navi Mumbai from the order of externment. Thus, the appellate authority itself found that the order 3 was excessive. If the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority vitiated due to non application of mind, the order could not have modified and the same ought to have been set aside. 3. Assuming that the order of appellate authority is valid, the law on this aspect is well settled. Mere geographical proximity of a district is no ground to pass an order of externment extending to the said district. Even according to the externing authority all the prejudicial activities of the petitioner were confined to the jurisdiction of two police stations at Bhivandi, Tal.Bhivandi, Dist.Thane. The order of externment could not have been passed extending to the districts of Raigad and Nashik unless a satisfaction was recorded in the order that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there was necessity of extending the order to the districts of Raigad and Nashik. In the order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as in the order of the appellate authority there is nothing to show that any satisfaction was recorded that there was necessity of extending the order to the districts of Nashik and Raigad. 4. Therefore, even the order of the appellate authority is excessive and the petition must succeed. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- 4 (a) The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the appellate authority are quashed and set aside; (b) The petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)