1 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.83 OF 2011 Santosh S/o.Munjaji Darade, Age-28 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Aundha Nagnath, At Present C/o.Vishnu Dagdoba Mundhe, Brahmavadi, Post : Tokwadi, Tq.Parali Vaijnath, Dist.Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary (A & S) Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basmathnagar, Tq.Basmathnagar, Dist.Hingoli, 3. The Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS Mr.S.P.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed by the Principal Secretary, (Appeals and Hearing), State of Maharashtra in Appeal No.Exh-2010/161- A/VS-3(A) dated 13/12/2010, confirming the order of externment, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Basmathnagar in File No. 2009-Tadipar-CR-35. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, followed by the submissions of learned A.P.P. for State. Learned counsel for petitioner states that a proposal was forwarded by the S.D.P.O. to Sub Divisional Magistrate on 31/03/2009 about the externment of the petitioner. On receipt of this proposal, report was called by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was submitted by the S.D.P.O. On perusal of the report, the petitioner was externed from 3 districts, i.e. Hingoli, Parbhani and Nanded. It is urged that the particulars of the alleged criminal activities find place in the proposal forwarded by the S.D.P.O. to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which is in respect of 4 offences, registered only in Aundha Nagnath Police Station. Inspite of that, the petitioner was externed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated 29/03/2010 from 3 districts. Being aggrieved by the said order of externment, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner before the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Hearing), State of Maharashtra, which was decided on 13/12/2010 by confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Hingoli, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for petitioner pressed only 2 points before the Court i.e. Even though the criminal activities shown to the credit of the petitioner are restricted about the 4 offences registered in Aundha Nagnath Police Station, inspite of that, the petitioner was externed from 3 districts, which is excessive than the jurisdiction vested with the competent authorities. Secondly, the period under externment order is nearabout over, but to avoid further complications, present petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. In response to the notice, learned A.P.P. has filed affidavit in reply. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that the proposal was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate about the externment order to be passed against the petitioner. Repeatedly show cause notices were served on the petitioner dated 08/06/2009, 09/07/2009, 30/07/2009, 22/09/2009, 23/12/2009, but inspite of that, the petitioner has not responded. It is further stated that only 4 offences are registered in Aundha Nagnath Police Station against the present petitioner, but number of devotees visited Aundha Nagnath, which is one of the holy place belonging to the people of Hindu Religion. Not only from Maharashtra State and Gujrath State, but from all over India, devotees used to visit the said holy place. Considering the criminal background of the petitioner, it is not only dangerous to the local residents, but also to the residents of neighbouring districts like Hingoli, Parbhani and Nanded. It is further stated that the offences which are registered against the 4 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 petitioner are under the provisions of Chapter XII, XIV, XVI of the Indian Penal Code, and hence no inference is required at the hands of this Court, and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that the applicant has not responded to the show cause notices served upon him by the competent authorities before the externment order was passed. Secondly, from the record produced, it is clear that 4 offences were registered against the petitioner and those 4 offences were registered only in Aundha Nagnath Police Station. No criminal activities of the petitioner are anywhere mentioned in the record outside the jurisdiction of Aundha Nagnath Police Station. No doubt, Parbhani and Nanded are the neighbouring districts, but in Hingoli District there are number of talukas other than Aundha Nagnath. It is necessary to consider here that in absence of any criminal activities disclosed in the record or in the orders impugned, whether it is proper to extern the applicant from the 3 districts and whether it amounts to an excessive action. 7. At this juncture, it is useful to give the reference of the observations in the matter of Umar Mohammed Malbari Versus K.P.Gaikwad and another, 1988(2) Bom.C.R.724, which observations are based on the observations in the matter of Balu Shivling Dombe versus Divisional Magistrate, 71 Bom.L.R. 79, so also the observations in the matter of Pandharinath Shridhar 5 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 Rangnekar versus Dy.Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 S.C.630. Other than the observations of this court in these rullings, further consistent view is taken by this Court not only at this bench, but at the Principal Seat, so also bench at Nagpur in the matter of Sandip Devidas Thorat versus The Principal Secretary (Appeals and Hearing, Home Department, State of Maharashtra and another, 2010 All MR (Cri.) 3046, so also in the matter of Vijay Aabarao Raje versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2010 All MR (Cri.) 2772, wherein it is observed that so far as the record shows that activities of the petitioner are restricted in the jurisdiction of only one police station, even then if the externment order is passed in the neighbouring district, it is an excessive order. 8. Thus it is brought to my notice from the record, so also from the observations of the orders impugned that as per the order in question, the activities of the petitioner are restricted in the jurisdiction of Aundha Nagnath Police Station only and his externment from district Hingoli, Parbhani and Nanded are excessive. Considering the consistent view taken by the High Court that if the order of externment is excessive, in excess of the jurisdiction, then the High Court has no power to go further and to correct the excessive order passed by the authorities concerned, but the only order to be passed, is to quash and set aside the impugned order. 9. In view of this, petition succeeds. Order impugned is hereby 6 Cri.Writ Petition No.83 of 2011 quashed and set aside. 10. Rule thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.w.p.83-11