1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2034 OF 2006 Shri Harish Dinanath Sharma .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Mr. U.N. Tripathi i/by Ms. S.A. Mudbidri for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 27TH APRIL, 2007 P.C. This is a petition challenging the orders of externment dated 27th April, 2006 and 30th August, 2006 respectively of the externing authority and the appellate authority externing the petitioner who is residing at Chembur, Mumbai from the Greater Bombay, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Raigad districts. 2. Mr. Tripathi, appearing for the petitioner has submitted at the outset that the petition is liable to succeed on the short ground which is taken at para 37 page 13E of the petition. The said ground reads thus- “37. The Petitioner says and submits that the order of externment directing the externment of the Petitioner from Bombay, Thane and Raigad District is an illegal order since the externing authority has exercised 2 power in excess by externing the Petitioner from Raigad District. The Petitioner says and submits that any excessive order is necessarily to be quashed and set aside. The appellate authority has no authority to modify an excessive and illegal order by reducing the area. This shows non-application of mind of the appellate authority.” 3. In support of his submission that the order is excessive and liable to be quashed and set aside, Mr. Tripathi relied upon the judgment of this court in Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare v. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others, 2006(1) Bombay C.R. (Cri.) 44. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is definite nexus and on account of availability of modern means of communication, the order does not require any interference on the ground that it is excessive. 4. I have perused the show-cause notice, copy of which is annexed as Annexure `A' to the petition. All the incidents which have been alleged are within the limits of the local police station. The area of operation where the incidents took place is, thus, confined to Chembur, Mumbai. All the offences are registered at R.C.F. Police Station at Chembur, Mumbai. 5. There is patent non-application of mind because the externing authority seems to be of the opinion that Navi Mumbai is a distinct district. Even the appellate authority before whom the matter was argued has found that the order is excessive and, therefore, proceeded to delete Raigad district from the order of the externing 3 authority. These are hardly satisfactory state of affairs. Once the prerequisites which are required to be satisfied and based upon which an order of externment has to be passed, are not at all fulfiled and satisfied, then, the orders cannot be said to be reasonable. Merely because the appellate authority has deleted one district from the order of the externing authority does not mean that there is Application of mind. As is rightly criticized by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Navi Mumbai is not a district by itself but is part of Thane district. There is substance in the criticism that the orders are passed mechanically and casually without any application of mind. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the order of externment having been modified by the appellate authority, no interference is necessary under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Considering the law laid down by this court so also being satisfied that the order is clearly excessive and vitiated by non- application of mind, I have no alternative but to allow the petition. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)