IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1753 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1753 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1753 OF 2007. Mohd. Shamsher Ghulam Nabi Pathan. ..Petitioner. versus The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Division, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Rashmi Gangwani, i/b. Ganesh Gole, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondents. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH JULY,2008. : 16TH JULY,2008. : 16TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed against him by the second respondent in exercise of powers under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner has also challenged the order of Appellate Authority by which the order of externment has been confirmed with modification. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the incidents on the basis of which the order of externment has been passed were either stale or non-existent. It is submitted that there is no application of mind by the second respondent in as much as the reply to a show cause notice filed by the petitioner has not been considered. The third submission is that the order of externment which extended to four districts was excessive as all the incidents alleged in the show cause notice were confined to the area within the jurisdiction of Mumbra Police Station. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the period of externment has expired, the order of externment will attract unnecessary stigma against the petitioner. 3. The learned APP for the respondent supported the impugned order by pointing out that the Appellate Authority had modified the order of externment and the same was confined only to three districts. He therefore, submitted that no interference was called for. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner shows that the first respondent had relied upon the various incidents which had taken place within the limits of the jurisdiction of Mumbra Police Station in Taluka and District Thane. By the impugned order, the petitioner was externed for a period of two years from the revenue districts of Thane, Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban and Raigad. Perusal of the order shows that there is no reason stated in the order for extending the order to the area of districts of Raigad, Greater Bombay and Bombay Suburban when the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner were confined to the area falling within the jurisdiction of Mumbra Police Station, District Thane. There is nothing stated in the order to show that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner, there was any necessity of extending the order to three other districts. 5. In fact, the Appellate Authority itself found that the order was excessive and therefore, the order was modified for excluding the Raigad district. An order of externment affects freedom of an individual. Once it is found that there was non application of mind and the order was excessive, such order could not have been corrected. Once it is found that the order is excessive, the same becomes illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of the order of the Appellate Authority, it cannot be disputed that the order was excessive. Only on this ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]