* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2009 Vinod Vasant Choudhari ..... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent ===== Mr.Mhaispurkar i/by. Mr.Hemant Ghadigaonkar, advocate for petitioner. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard counsels for both sides. 3. This Writ Petition is filed to challenge the order of externment under Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 dated 10th September, 2008 passed against the petitioner and the order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by the Government of Maharashtra dismissing the appeal against the order of externment. The petitioner was issued notice dated 13th July 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the area of Greater Bombay, City and * 2 * Suburbs, New Bombay and Thane District for a period of 2 years. The show cause notice referred to nine cases allegedly pending against him, filed during the period 1991 to 2008, registered at Andheri Police Station. The show cause notice does not set out any facts or incidents alleged to have occurred in the area of New Bombay and Thane District. It gives details of two complaints filed in the year 2008, the incidents wherein had occurred within the jurisdiction of Andheri Police Station. 4. The petitioner showed cause. He was heard by the Assistant Commissioner of Police before passing the impugned order dated 13th July 2008. By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner of Police externed him from the area of Greater Bombay, New Bombay and Thane District for a period of two years. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the petitioner had pointed out that out of the nine cases he has been acquitted in five cases and there are only four cases pending against him. Perusal of the externment order passed shows that this fact has not been considered by the Commissioner. The order also does not show any justification in externing the petitioner from the area of New Bombay and Thane District. There is no connection whatsoever shown of the petitioner to the said areas. Thus, * 3 * the order of externment passed by the Assistant commissioner of Police is seen to be excessive. 5. The petitioner challenged the order of externment by preferring an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its impugned order, modified the order of externment confining the same to Greater Bombay District. It took note of the fact that the petitioner is acquitted in five of the cases. The order however does not give any reasons for curtailing the area of externment to Greater Bombay District. 6. Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of externment curtails liberty of an individual which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Therefore, if it is found that the order of externment is excessive, it becomes illegal and there can be no modification of the same. He relies upon a decision dated 12th August, 20008 of this court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1909 of 2007 wherein identical facts were involved. It was held that once it is found that the order is excessive, it shows non-application of mind by the authority and if the order is found to be illegal, the same has to be set aside. In the instant case, the order of the appellate authority in terms observes that the order of * 4 * externment is excessive, and simply restricts the area of operation to Greater Bombay District within which Andheri Police Station falls. Hence, the order of externment must be regarded as illegal, for that reason. There could be no modification of an illegal order. It also does not consider the fact that on the date of the order, the petitioner was acquitted in five of nine cases. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. [JUDGE]