1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2009 Vilas @ Billiya Siddu Jhadav Petitioner versus Dy.Commissioner of Police and others Respondents Mr.U.N.Tripathi for the petitioner. Miss A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State. The challenge in this petition is to an order of externment passed against the petitioner under section 56(1)(A)(B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been ordered to be externed from the districts of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad. The order directs that the petitioner shall be externed for a period of six months. The order of externment has been confirmed in an appeal. 2. Apart from various submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is excessive inasmuch as 2 it extends to Raigad District when all the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner are confined to Ghatkopar area of Mumbai Suburban District. Relying upon various decisions of this Court, he submits that the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is excessive. Learned APP supported the impugned order by pointing out that no interference in the subjective satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner is called for. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the case of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others (2006{1}-BCR {Cri}-44), this Court had an occasion to consider a petition involving similar grounds. In paragraph 14 of the said decision this court has held thus :- "14. Coming back to the facts of the cases in hand, in Criminal Writ Petition No.1598 of 2005 the order of externment alleges the prejudicial activities of the Petitioner which are confined to area falling within the jurisdiction of Mulund Police Station in Mumbai. It is obvious that the order of externment extending to Thane district would have been in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, the order is passed which applies to Raigad district alongwith Thane and Mumbai districts. As held by me, mere geographical proximity is no ground to pass order of externment. The order merely recites that there are facilities of communication available between Mumbai and district Raigad. There is nothing in the order to show that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Mulund Police Station can be said to be intimately connected to the district Raigad. There is nothing stated in the order to show that considering the facts peculiar to the Petitioner there is a necessity of extending the order to district Raigad. Thus, in my view, the order is excessive as it extends to district Raigad. It must be noted that there is another error in the 3 order. The order treats Navi Mumbai as a separate district when it admittedly forms part of the Thane District which is already mentioned in the order. However, it cannot be said that the order is also vitiated due to this error." (Emphasis added) 4. Now, coming back to the order of externment which is impugned in this petition, I find that all the prejudicial activities alleged against the petitioner relate to the area of Ghatkopar in Mumbai Suburban District. In view of the settled law, the order of externment could have extended to Thane District. However, there is not even a reference in the impugned order as to why the order is being extended to Raigad District. This Court has repeatedly held that mere geographical proximity is no ground to pass an order of externment extending to the adjoining districts. The order cannot be extended to the adjoining districts unless the authority is satisfied that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there is necessity to extend the order to the adjoining districts. However, this aspect is totally absent in the impugned order. Only on this ground the petition must succeed as the impugned order is excessive. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.OKA, J.)