1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.332 OF 2010 Jagan Zhipriya Mhatre ...Petitioner vs. DCP, Zone-2, Bhiwandi and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.R.R. Tripathi for Petitioner Mrs.P.P. Bhosale  APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order of externment dated 22nd May,2009. By the said order, the Petitioner has been externed from five districts viz. Thane, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai, Raigad and Nashik for a period of one year. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the concerned authorities is excessive inasmuch as he has been externed from five districts though the activities of the Petitioner are confined to Bhiwandi 1 and Bhiwandi City. 4. I have perused the show cause notice and the impugned order. Neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order, there is any material to indicate that the Petitioner is carrying on prejudicial activities in the said Districts other than the City of Bhiwandi. It is obvious, therefore, that the Externing Authorities has passed the impugned order without there being any material on record regarding prejudicial activities of the Petitioner in other districts. The said order is, therefore, excessive. Since this Court does not have power to contain only the excessive order, the entire order, therefore will have to be set aside. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umar Mohamed Malbari Vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy.Commissioner of Police and Anr. reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 5 page 1034 has taken a similar view. 5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order No.DCP/Zone-2/Externment/56/08/2009 passed by DCP, Bhiwandi dated 22.5.2009 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)