1 Cri.WP No.880/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.880/2010 Yusuf Mahomad Patel - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Ajay G.Magre, Advocate for petitioner; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3rd February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Affidavit of Sub Divisional Magistrate – Tukaram Deoram Hulwale, display, during the externment proceedings, there is another offence registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No.24/2010 for an offence under Section 379, 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code at Pimpalner police station. The record illustrate, the petitioner herein is an accused in Crime No.1/2009 and 36/2009 of same Police Station. 3) The petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of Section 60 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order dated 29.11.2010 of the Government 2 Cri.WP No.880/2010 (Principal Secretary) portray that the petitioner or his counsel did not remain present when the matter was called on 15.10.2010; 28.10.2010 and 10.11.2010 while the local authorities were present. 4) The externment of the petitioner from four districts, at this stage of the mater, appears to be an extreme step initiated by the authorities when the accusations against him revolve for three pending cases in Pimpalner in Dhule district. 5) The learned Counsel has invited my attention to the judgment in the matter of Umar Mohammed Malbari Vs. K.P.Gaikwad and Anr. - 1988 (2) Bom.C.R.724, wherein the externment of the said petitioner was from different districts, the Division Bench did not approve the directions therein. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 7, - “ If the activities indulged in by the petitioner were restricted within the Taluka of Bhiwandi within the Thane Commissionerate, the order externing the petitioner out of the Raigad and Nasik Districts which has within them taluka places at a distance of more than 100 miles will undoubtedly be an excessive order and an excessive order has necessarily to be struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted within than is reasonable in the circumstance of 3 Cri.WP No.880/2010 the case.” 6) This aspect needs to be considered by Appellate Authority. The matter is remitted to the Appellate authority. The petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority on 7th March, 2011 and the authorities shall ensure to dispose of the same expeditiously. 7) The authorities will also consider the observations of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.847/2010 dated 27th October, 2010 in the matter of Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Mahboob Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 8) The impugned order, externing the petitioner will not be operative till decision of the Appellate Authority. 9) The learned APP will also independently communicate the appellate authority. 10) The writ petition is disposed of. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/