1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.750 OF 2009 Bhavesh Jamnadas Jobanputra .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Nivas Kamble h/f Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioner. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers under section 56(1) (A)(B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order of externment has been confirmed in appeal. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of externment has been passed in a mechanical manner. He pointed out that there are no orders of conviction passed against the petitioner and only certain offences have been registered against the petitioner. He submitted that those offences have been registered in the year 2 2000, 2001 and 2005 and the order of externment has been passed on 27th February 2009. He submitted that there is no live link between the incidents forming part of that offences and the requirement of passing preventive order of externment under the provisions of the said Act of 1951. He submitted that the Appellate Authority has not given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. While passing the order of externment, the authority has referred to not only the offences registered against the petitioner from the years 2002 to 2005 but reliance has been placed on an offence registered in the year 2008 of the incident of August 2008. The said offence is under sections 384, 385 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Reliance has been placed on in-camera statements of two witnesses who have deposed regarding the incidents of 12th January 2009. Thus, the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner are from the year 2000 till 12th January 2009. Hence, it cannot be said that live link between the externment order passed on 29th February 2009 and the incidents alleged against the petitioner has been snapped. 3 4. Though the order refers to District Navi Mumbai, this Court has already taken a judicial notice of the fact that Navi Mumbai is not a separate revenue district but it forms a part of District Thane which is already held to be intimately connected to Bombay by this Court and by the Apex Court. 5. The order of externment by its very nature is a preventive action. When such preventive action is challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction, what is required to be seen is availability of material to pass the order and not the adequacy of the material. In this case, as observed above, there is a material on record. This is not a case where there is a breach of principles of natural justice or that any extroneous material has been considered while passing the order. The order cannot be also said to be excessive. Therefore, it is very difficult to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority recorded in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)