1 WP-189-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2011 Ravindra Shankar Gunjal ) Age 33 years, Occu.Business residing ) at House No.6740, Tanaji Nagar, Near ) Shiv Sena Shakha, Ambernath (E), ) Taluka Ambernath, Dist. Thane. ).. Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ) 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, ) Zone IV, Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. ) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Police, ) Ambernath Division, Thane. ) 4. The Principal Secretary, (Appeals and ) Security) to the Government of ) Maharashyra, Home Department, ) Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. ).. Respondents Mr. Neelesh V.Kalantri, i/b. Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi,Advocate, for the petitiooner. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 4th May, 2011. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 WP-189-11.sxw 2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Ulhasnagar, District Thane on 26.2.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to be externed from the local limits of District Thane and the Districts of Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban for a period of two years. 3. Initially, a show cause notice dated 20.11.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath as to why he should not be externed from the Districts of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Sububan and Raigad District under the provisions of Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) read with Sec.59 of the Bombay Police Act. It was alleged that Criminal Case No.85/2008 under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him on the report lodged by one Mangesh Sakharam Lanjekar. It was alleged that the present petitioner had threatened to oust the complainant from the business of cable operator at Ambernath and also threatened to kill. Besides this, the reliance was placed on the statements of in-camera statements of two witnesses . As a history of his conduct, it was alleged that he was involved in Criminal Case No.193/1997 under Sections 324, 504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, in Crime No.245/1997 under Sec. 387, 385, 451, 504, 506 read with Sections 109,. 3 WP-189-11.sxw 114 and 34, in Crime No.259/97 under Sec. 385 read with Sec. 109, 114 and Sec.34 and in Crime No.267/97 under sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The petitioner denied that he had committed any offence. According to him, because of the business rivalry, a false case was registered against him and attempt was being made to remove him from Ambernath so that his business rivals could flourish in the business as cable operators. After his explanation was submitted, the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of externment from the Districts of Thane, Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban for the same reasons. The appeal preferred by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Appeals and Security, Maharashtra State. 4. On perusal of the show cause notice on which final order is based, it appears that four cases, which were cited as a history of his conduct and antecedents, were registered during the year 1997 at Ambernath Police Station. After 1997 till Case No.85/2008 was registered, there was no criminal case registered against him during the period of more than 10 years. Thus, the externment order was based on a single case registered in the year 2008 at Shivaji Nagar, Ambernath Police Station. On perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that all the cases were based on certain reports lodged by the persons who were involved in the business of cable operators. The petitioner is also one of the cable 4 WP-189-11.sxw operators and therefore, it appears that the real dispute was the business rivalry between different cable operators. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had actually committed the offence, all the criminal cases were registered against him at Ambernath. There was not a single criminal case registered against him on the basis of anybody who was not concerned with the business of cable operators. Besides this, there was not a single criminal case registered against him outside Ambernath. From this, it appears that the area of operation of the petitioner was only Ambernath Town and not more than. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner of Police externed the petitioner from three revenue Districts i.e. Thane, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District. No reason is given as to why he was required to be externed from 3 districts, when his area of operation is limited only to Ambernath Town and when no criminal case was ever registered against him at any police station even in the town adjoining Ambernath. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of externment from three districts is exercise of powers in excess of jurisdiction. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that when the externment order was excessive, whole of the order will have to be quashed because this Court does not sit in appeal, and has only to find out whether the order passed by the authorities is correct or is liable to be quashed. In support of 5 WP-189-11.sxw this,he placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shri Umar Mohammed Malbari vs. K.P.Gaikwad & Anr.1988 (2) Bom.C.R 724 wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows in para 8 :- "8....The High Court, when it issues the high prerogative writ of certiorari, it directs the judicial tribunal against which it is acting to transmit its record to the Court and if necessary to quash the order which the Tribunal has passed. It must not be forgotten that in issuing the writ this Court is not acting as a Court of appeal. It is exercising supervisory powers conferred upon it, and those powers are exercised by means of issuing high prerogative writs. But the power and jurisdiction of the Court is limited and the same cannot extend to the powers of an appellate Court. This Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial function has or has not acted without jurisdiction or whether in the exercise of jurisdiction it has acted in excess of jurisdiction. If it has acted in excess of jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of this Court is to quash the order passed in excess of jurisdiction. There the power of the High Court stops. It has no power to go further and to correct an excessive order passed by the authority concerned. (Mohamed Usman v. Labour Appellate Tribunal), LIV B.L.R. at Page 513". 6. As I find that the externment order from three revenue districts 6 WP-189-11.sxw suffers from the vice of exercise of excessive jurisdiction, the said order has to be quashed and it cannot be rectified or corrected by this Court. 7. In the result, the impugned order of externment is hereby set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. 8. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)