1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Externee and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent State. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment bearing No.145/C/43 dated 25th May, 2012, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, passed by the Respondent No.1 and which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17th August, 2012.

3. The Petitioner is normally residing at the address given in the cause tile. It is the case of the Petitioner that on or about 23rd February, 2012, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deonar Division, Mumbai proposing the externment of the Petitioner for two years from Bombay City, Suburban, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts for the offences mentioned in the said show cause notice.

4. The Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his oral and written reply. The Enquiry Officer closed the case and forwarded the same to the Externing Authority. On or about 25th May, 2012, an order of externment came to be issued by the Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner. By the said order, it was directed that the Petitioner should be externed from the Bombay City, Suburban, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad District for two years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner herein preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected by order dated 17th August, 2012.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the order of externment is illegal and excessive. It is submitted that, even though all the alleged activities, which are committed within the jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar Police Station within Greater Bombay, the Petitioner is externed from Greater Bombay, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts for two years. It is the specific contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Externing Authority has exercised powers excessively and arbitrarily. There are no any prejudicial activities of the Petitioner found in any other Districts except Bombay. Though other grounds are taken in the Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner confined his arguments to the aforestated grounds.

6. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent State relied upon the reasons recorded by the Respondent Authorities and submitted that the externment order is perfectly justified and sustainable in law, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order.

7. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and with the able assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, carefully perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures thereto and other documents made available for perusal, and we are of the considered opinion that the order of externment passed by the Respondent No.1 is excessive and deserves to be quashed and set aside for the reasons set out herein-below.

8. There are three cases registered against the Petitioner vide C.R. No.379 of 2010, C.R. No.08 of 1994 and C.R. No.196 of 2002 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station. The said position is not disputed by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent State. All the three C.Rs are registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station. Therefore, necessary inference would be that, the alleged activities of the Petitioner, which are stated in those C.Rs, are confined within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order of externment, it is abundantly clear that, by way of the said order, the Petitioner is externed not only from Greater Bombay, but from New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts. The Respondent No.1 has not recorded any subjective satisfaction for externing the Petitioner from other Districts i.e. New Bombay, Thane and Raigad.

9. The point ra