1 Cri.W.P. No.2907 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2010 Shankar Sattya Wadalkonda ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Madhav Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner questions propriety of orders recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 28.5.2010 and the appellate authority dated 13.8.2010, externing him for the period of two years from the area of Mumbai Commissionerate and Thane District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, going by the record and nature of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are restricted to the area of Borivali whereas the order of externment from other area is excessive in its very nature. The stale cases which were subject of 2 Cri.W.P. No.2907 of 2010 earlier identical prosecution against the petitioner are considered and hence totally illegal order is passed. Thirdly in camera statement of the witness does not disclose any offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is conducting business of supply of milk and the authorities have illegally prosecuted him. In earlier cases he was arrested on 24.3.2010 and by orders of the court was released on 26.3.2010. Thereafter, action referred to hereinabove according to learned counsel is illegal and calls for interference. 4. As against the above contention, the learned A.P.P. while inviting my attention to affidavit in reply also submits that by virtue of additional affidavit it is indicated that inspite of said externment order being in force against the petitioner, he has entered the area for four times. These aspects are not controverted by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the matter of Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and anr. 1969 Cri.L.J. 1341, Mr. Kishore Rajaram Durge Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. 2003 All MR 2023, Punaji Dagdu Gaikwad Vs. State of 3 Cri.W.P. No.2907 of 2010 Maharashtra and Ors. 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. 926. These three judgments deal with the authorities externing respective applicants from different districts and the court has opined that such orders are excessive in its nature. Now dealing with the case of Punaji Dagdu Gaikwad, it is explicit that even if activities of said applicant were restricted to Buldhana, but he was externed from the Districts Akola, Washim, Jalna, Parbhani and Jalgaon and consequently the challenge by the said petitioner was upheld. In the matter of Balu, the authorities externed the said applicant from districts Solapur, Poona and Satara. It was found to be erroneous as the Division Bench observed that these districts or any part thereof cannot be said to be contiguous to each other to extern the said applicant. In the matter of Kishore Rajaram Durge, the court found no reasons for externing the petitioner from the Thane District, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai suburban and Raigad District when the activities of the said accused were restricted to the area of Madrasipada and Dobighat and the adjoining areas of Ulhasnagar town only. 6. On this aspect, one should not quarrel that even as alleged the offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of Borivali police station, it is in close proximity of Thane and part of Greater Mumbai. Best and 4 Cri.W.P. No.2907 of 2010 fastest communication transportation facilities are available to any person. It cannot be said that the accused applicant has been excessively deprived from enjoying his liberties. The conduct of the applicant speaks against him as he has frequently committed the breach of the order by entering in the area. The authorities had earlier recorded that the applicant was involved in such activities and he was externed. The applicant is involved in the matter being Crime No. 109 of 2010 under section 272 273, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. and offences under Section 16, 2(1A)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The another crime being crime No. 71 of 2010 for identical offences registered against the applicant. Considering these aspects, I do not see that the order of externment against the applicant externing him from the above referred districts is excessive and that the authorities were influenced by the earlier stale cases against the applicant. In the result, petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)