Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of both parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 26-8-2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morshi in Criminal Case No. 13/2008/BP Act 56(1)(B) of the Bombay Police Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The respondent No.2 herein issued show cause notice asking the petitioner as to why he should not be externed. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 and filed his reply. However, by order dated 26-8-2009 passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner is externed from Amravati, Akola and Wardha districts for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 26-8-2009 in Case No. 13/2008/BP Act 56(1)(B), whereby the petitioner is externed from Amravati, Akola and Wardha districts for a period for a period of one year, this petition is filed. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that show cause notice dated 12-5-2009 issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Amravati, Wardha and Nagpur districts for a period of two years under Section 56(1)(B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 and filed his reply. The learned Advocate submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is perverse, without application of mind and is contrary to the settled position of law. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has not conducted any independent inquiry and has acted on the police report. In the police report there are as many as 17 offences have been shown to be registered as against the petitioner, whereas in fact there are only 4 cases which are pending against the petitioner and in all remaining cases he has been already acquitted by the competent Court of law. It is further submitted that on perusal of show cause notice, it reveals that only 2 offences are under sections of Indian Penal Code and rest all are under sections of Bombay Prohibition Act. That in offences mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 8 in the notice the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent Court of law. The rest of the offences mentioned at Sr. That in offences mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 8 in the notice the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent Court of law. The rest of the offences mentioned at Sr. No. 9 to 12 which are under sections of Bombay Prohibition Act are pending against the petitioner, which are at the stage of judgment. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that, only offences which are pending, are under the Bombay Prohibition Act and not under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the area of operation of the petitioner where he has committed alleged offences appears to be Police Station Morshi. Therefore, it is unjust on the part of the respondent No.2 to extern the petitioner from the Amravati, Akola and Wardha districts looking at the nature of offences alleged against the petitioner. The learned Advocate further submits that the petitioner is peace loving citizen and has not indulged in any activities which would harm the peace of the society or public. The petitioner is married man having two school going children who are entirely dependent upon the petitioner for their livelihood. 5. The learned Advocate in support of his contention that no externment order externing the petitioner could have been passed from other districts than a district in which alleged activities have been attributed to the petitioner, relied on following judgments;- 1. Shri Umar Mohamed Malbari .v. K.P. Gaikwad Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane and another reported in Cr.L.R.(Mah. 1988, 480; 2. Suleman Husa Davji .v. The State of Gujarat and another reported in 1989 Cr.L.R. (Guj.) 132; 3. Namdeo Laxman Charde .v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Katol reported in 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 483 ; 4. Babadin s/o Badruddin .v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(1)Mh.L.J. 502; 5. Cri.W.P. 777 of 2005 Nandkishor s/o Jagdish Duryodhan .v. State of Maharashtra and others; 6. Bharat s/o Dhondba Tarare .v. The Sub-Divisional Officer and others reported in 2007 ALL MR(Cri) 3036; 7. Gunwanta s/o Gajanan Khandekar .v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Ramtek and others reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1519: 6. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the order of externment passed by the respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned APP appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that all 17 offences have been shown to be registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that the order of externment passed by the respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned APP appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that all 17 offences have been shown to be registered against the petitioner. It is admitted that in show cause notice, there are 2 offences under Indian Penal Code and rest of offences are under sections of Bombay Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that pending offences are under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The learned APP invited myattention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State and submitted that this petitioner is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner at length and learned APP for the respondents/State. This petition deserves to be allowed only on the point that the externment order passed by the respondent No.2 externing the petitioner from three districts is not sustainable, in view of the admitted position that, the alleged offences and activities against the petitioner are within the area of Morshi Police Station, which is situated in Amravati district. This point is no more res integra. This Court in number of pronouncements held that, if the externment order is passed externing the person more than one districts and his activities or offences alleged against him are only in one district, then the externment order externing the concerned person has to go. This Court in case of Shri Umar Mohamed Malbari .v. K.P. Gaikwad Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane cited Supra in paragraph 7 this Court has observed that - “If the activities indulged in by the petitioner were restricted within the Taluka of Bhiwandi within the Thane Commissionerate, the order externing the petitioner out of the Raigad and Nasik Districts which has within them Taluka places at a distance of more than 100 miles will undoubtedly be an excessive order and an excessive order has necessarily to be a struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.” 10. In Paragraph 8 of the said Judgment this Court further observed that – “This Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial function has or has not acted without jurisdiction or whether in the exercise of jurisdiction it has acted in excess of jurisdiction. If it has acted in excess of jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of this Court is to quash the order passed in excess of jurisdiction. There the power of the High Court stops. It has no power to go further and to correct an excessive order passed by the Authority concerned.” 11. The view taken by the Division Bench in case of Shri Umar Mohamed Malbari .v. K.P. Gaikwad Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane cited Supra followed by this Court in other reported judgments cited Supra in paragraph 4 above. 12. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 suffers from voice of excess. In fact the alleged activities of the petitioner are restricted to Amravati district alone and he has been externed from the other districts and thereby the order passed by the respondent No.2 is excessive. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Umar Mohamed Malbari .v. K.P. Gaikwad Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Thane cited Supra whole order of the externment impugned in this petition has to go. Therefore, petition succeeds. The order dated 26-8-2009 is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1).