1 WP : 3027/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3027 OF 2010 Zahid Alam Gulzar Sayyad @ Pappan .... Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police .... Respondents Zone-IX, Mumbai & Ors. Mr. S.L. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 23rd December, 2010 P.C. 1. Admit. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges his externment from the area of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, New Mumbai and Thane for a period of one year vide the order dated 23rd June 2010 passed by respondent no. 1 and confirmation of that order by respondent no.3 vide its order dated 23rd September 2010. The petitioner contends that the order of externment is bad as the same is excessive and it takes into consideration the cases filed against him in which he has either already been acquitted or where parties have 2 WP : 3027/2010 decided to compound the offence. 3. The petitioner was served with notice on 1st April 2010 under Section 29 of Bombay Police Act causing upon him to show as to why he should not be externed from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburbans, Thane district, Thane and New Mumbai for a period of two years. The notice referred to three pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, i)C.R. No.107 of 2006 under Section 324 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, ii) C.R.No.187 of 2007 under Section 324 read with 34 and iii)C.R. No.402 of 2007 under Sections 452, 324, 504, 427 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims to have been acquitted in the first two cases on 20th June 2008 and 8th March 2008 respectively. As regards the third case, the parties have allegedly agreed to compound the offences therein. Since the impugned order of externment is not based on this material, it needs to be ignored. 4. The show cause notice next refers to the incident dated 8th January 2010 on which date at about 15.30 hrs., witness Shabbir Menon while proceeding in his Honda City vehicle from his office, was shot at with revolver by two persons. One of the two persons could be immediate caught and complaint vide C.R. No.15 of 2010 under Section 307 read with 34, 120-B Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act be registered. The arrested accused disclosed the plan for murder of the witness. For that purpose, he and another person were flown from Jharkhand to Mumbai and their arrangement for residence at Mumbai made by the petitioner. The petitioner had also 3 WP : 3027/2010 arranged for money to be paid to the two persons. The petitioner, therefore was arrested in that C.R. on 11th January 2010 and later released on bail in the month of May 2010. 5. The third set of allegations in the show cause notice are two in- camera statements alleging the acts of terrorization and extortion of the persons in the locality of Oshiwara. The notice further states that because of such acts, the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. 6. The externing authority while passing its order dated 23rd June 2010 took into consideration only the complaint vide C.R.No. 15 of 2010 and the in-camera statements. It expressed its subjective satisfaction, that it is desirous that the petitioner be externed from four districts i.e. Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and New Mumbai for a period of one year. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a further statement of Shabbir Menon, the person arrested, which allegedly exonerates the petitioner of the incident alleged in C.R. No.15 of 2010. Perusal of the statement relied upon by the petitioner however, shows that there is no exoneration of the petitioner as claimed. As per the statement, the petitioner had planned to kill the witness at the instance of his brother Vicky. He had arranged for the residence of the shooters brought from outside Mumbai. It is well established that scope of judicial scrutiny of administrative orders is very limited as these orders are passed on subjective satisfaction of the concerned authorities. The 4 WP : 3027/2010 judicial scrutiny of the Court is limited to the legality of the decision making process and not legality of the order per se. In the present case neither any illegality nor irrationality nor any procedural impropriety is noticed in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)