The main legal point established is the limited jurisdiction of the writ court in externment matters, the powers of the appellate authority to modify an externment order, and the requirement for objective satisfaction and material on record for such orders.

A. I. S. CHEEMA, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of counsel for both sides.

2. This matter relates to externment order passed against the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 Police Inspector, Amalner Police Station submitted proposal (Exhibit A), dated 12-3-2014 to respondent No. 3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalner Division under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act (now - The Maharashtra Police act). The respondent No. 3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who recorded evidence and submitted the enquiry report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amalner passed the impugned order of externment. Petitioner claims that, the petitioner runs a pan stall and soda water shop near Dagadi Darwaja vicinity at Amalner and has a family to maintain. There are no complaints from the residents of the locality. It is averred that, respondent No. 3 had issued notice under section 56(1) (Exhibit C) to petitioner. The petitioner filed say to the notice (Exhibit D). The petitioner examined two witnesses in support of himself claiming that the offences registered are on false information and he had also been acquitted in some. The respondent No. 3, however, submitted report (Exhibit F). The petitioner had filed written arguments (Exhibit G), but in spite of petitioner defending the action, the respondent No. 4, without applying mind and considering the evidence and explanation of the petitioner, passed impugned order dated 19-9-2014 (Exhibit H) and the petitioner was externed from Jalgaon, Buldhana, Dhule and Nandurbar districts for one year. The petitioner preferred appeal (Exhibit I) to the State Government on 19-9-2014 and initially stay was granted to the impugned order. However, subsequently, the appellate authority recorded its decision on 27-1-2015 (Exhibit K) and the externment order was modified and externment was limited to Jalgaon district only. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 19-9-2014 of externment was without application of mind and bad in law and once the order of externment was found to be excessive, the same should have been quashed, and modification was not permissible under the law in view of decision of this Court (Coram : S. S. Shinde and N. W. Sambre, JJ.), passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1246/2014.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and submitted that the externment of the petitioner from four districts was apparently and clearly excessive and the criminal cases pointed out against the petitioner were all from Amalner, District Jalgaon and once this was so, the appellate authority had no other option but to quash the externment order in appeal. According to him, the externment order could not have been modified as has been done by the appellate authority.

5. Against this, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, the petitioner had filed the appeal and the appellate authority has rightly modified the externment order so as to limit the same to Jalgaon district only and there is nothing illegal in it.

6. We have gone through the judgment relied on by the petitioner to claim that once the externment order is found to be excessive, it has to be quashed in its entirety. We find that the petitioner has not properly appreciated the order passed by this Court. The observations of this Court in paras 8 and 9 in the concerned judgment read as under :

8. Once this Court has reached to the conclusion that, the externment order is excessive, same deserves to be quashed in its entirety. 9. At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, contended that the entire order of externment was not liable to be struck down merely because it covered areas which were excessive than what was justified. In the case of Umar Mohamed Malbari vs. K. P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and anr., 1988 Mh.L.J. 1034, while considering the similar argument advanced by the learned Addi