Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard Shri Waquar Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. H. Kantharia, learned A.P.P.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner in this petition preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order of externment dated 19th December, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division, Thane No.TD/4/ADMN/Haddapar/SR-13/12 and the order dated 26th April, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, confirming the order of externment in Appeal No.EXT-2013/23/SPL-3(B).

4. Considering the petitioner's activities, it appears that the respondent No.3 had initiated an action for externing the petitioner. On a proposal submitted to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mira Road Division, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner, on 6th July, 2012 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act of 1951'). The petitioner replied to the said notice. After considering the reply, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mira Road Division, i.e. the Enquiry Officer forwarded his report to the Externing Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division, Thane. On receipt of the said report, the Externing Authority after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012, externing the petitioner from the Districts of Thane, Pune, Nashik, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District for a period of two years.

5. Against the said order of externment dated 19th December, 2012, the petitioner preferred an Appeal being Appeal No.EXT-2013/23/STL- 3(B) before the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties confirmed the order of externment vide Order dated 26th April, 2013. The petitioner has challenged before us, both the aforesaid orders.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ahmad urged before us, that the order of externment was clearly excessive, in as much as the offences that were registered against the petitioner from 2009 to 2011, were registered only with the Mira Road Police Station, Thane, whereas the order of externment extended not only to Thane District but also to Pune and Nashik Districts, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District. He contended that the offences registered as against the petitioner have not ended in any conviction nor was there anything on record to show that the petitioner had abused the conditions of bail, granted in those cases and as such prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders. He also contended that due to the order of externment, his business has been adversely affected and he being the sole earning member of the family, the order of externment violated his fundamental right to livelihood.

7. Per contra, learned APP supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petition. It was contended that the order of externment is not excessive considering the close proximity of the extended Districts to Thane District.

8. At the outset, it would be useful to refer to the cases alleged to have being registered as against the petitioner with the Mira Road Police Station, Thane, which are as follows:-

Sr.No. Police Station C.R.No. offences alleged Status as per Notice Actual Status

1. Mira Road I- 344/11 Section 325, 504,506, 34 IPC Pending Pending

2. Mira Road I-593/09 Section 326, 325,143, 147, 148,149, 504, 506 IPC Pending Pending

3. Mira Road I-140/11 Section 354, 323,504, 506, 34IPC Pending Pending

PUBLIC NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES

Sr. No. Police Station C.R. No. Section

1. Mira Road 1210/2005 323, 504, 506 IPC

CHAPTER CASE

Sr.No. Police Station C.R. No. Section

1. Mira Road 70/2005 107 Cr. P. C.

9. From a perusal of the aforesaid chart, it is evident, that all the cases which came to be registered