1 681.11 CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 681 OF 2011 Kailash S/o Budha Hatkar, Age 28 years, Occu. Labour R/o Vitthal Nagar, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home Ministery, Mumbai. 2] Superintendent of Police, Police Superintendent Office, Jalgaon. 3] Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Sub Division, Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2011 Kiran Narayan Hatkar, Age 23 years, Occu. Labour R/o Vitthal Nagar, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, 2 681.11 CWP Through Principal Secretary, Home Ministery, Mumbai. 2] Superintendent of Police, Police Superintendent Office, Jalgaon. 3] Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Sub Division, Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions Smt. R.K. Ladda, APP for the respondents / State in both the petitions ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 28 th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Perused. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, taken up for final hearing by mutual consent. 3. Common order of externment dated 27-02-2011 passed by the respondent No. 2- Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon and the order dated 10-06-2011 passed by the respondent No. 1, 3 681.11 CWP confirming the order of externment are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. 4. The record reveals that a common show cause notice under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which made reference to two and seven criminal cases regarding the offences affecting the body and property, registered against the present petitioners respectively were issued on 07-09-2010. Though this notice made allegations of instilling fear in the minds of the people at large within the limits of Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, against the petitioner, it required the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from Jalgaon District. The record further reveals that the order of externment directing the externment of the petitioners for two years from the District of Jalgaon as well as Buldhana, Aurangabad and Dhule pursuant to the said notice was ordered on 27-02-2011. An appeal preferred against this order of externment were rejected by the respondent/ State on 10-06-2011. 5. Referring to Umar Malbari’s case [Umar Mohammed Malbari V. K.P. Gaikwad & another, 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 724], learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the activities alleged against the petitioners were restricted within Zilla Peth 4 681.11 CWP Police Station, Jalgaon, and as such, show cause notices were issued, and, therefore, the order of externment extending to three other districts was excessive and deserves to be struck down. 6. The learned APP for the respondents/ State, submitted that Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, gave sufficient powers to appropriate authority to pass orders, even beyond the areas wherein no prejudicial activities of the externee were reported. She relied upon the judgment in Baban Sudam Kambale’s case [Baban Sudam Kamble V The State of Maharashtra & Ors; 1997 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 1238]. She further pleaded that due to error the show cause notice failed to make mention of three more districts i.e. Buldhana, Aurangabad and Dhule and as such, the impugned order be suitably corrected and not struck down. 7. In Baban Sudam Kambale’s case (supra), the show cause notice issue made mention of illegal activities of the petitioner in the localities of Imamwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities and the externment order passed as a sequel to it extended to Nagpur city and Nagpur Rural area. Nagpur Bench of this Court appreciated the powers conferred by Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, and observed in para No. 5 : “ When the 5 681.11 CWP objectionable and criminal activities of the petitioner is specifically stated to be in Immwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities, one can not question the correctness of the order on the ground that its effect is throughout Nagpur city and also the nearby area.” This Court further distinguished the Baban Sudam Kambale’s case (supra) from Balu Shivling (Balu Shivling Dombe V. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur; AIR, 1969 Mh.L.J. 387), wherein this Court had set aside the externment order which extended to three revenue districts. 8. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, authorises the externment of a person outside the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the authority making the order as well as such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto. However, the discretion conferred on the authority in deciding the area of externment is required to be exercised reasonably. Thus, it must be shown after reasonable opportunities are given to the proposed externee that the areas from which they are externed have been so chosen to sub-serve its real purpose. 9. In the instant case, a show cause notice referred only to area of Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and the externment order included Buldhana, Aurangabad and Dhule districts. It is also 6 681.11 CWP not shown or demonstrated in the order of externment as to how the externment of the externees from the Buldhana, Aurangabad and Dhule districts is to sub-serve its real purpose which evidently is for seeking protection of body and property of the persons and for public peace within the limits of Zilla Peth Peth Police Station. In considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders certainly are excessive. Further, it needs to be observed that this Court can not correct excessive orders while exercising writ jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside in terms of prayer clauses “B”. Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* November-11