JUDGMENT G.S. Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Saste, Learned APP, waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith, and petition taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns (i) an Externment Order dated 30th March 2013 No. 38/C/43/2013 issued by the Respondent No. 2 externing the Petitioner from the limits of Brihan Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane for the period of one year; and (ii) an Appellate Order dated 17th June, 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 confirming the Externment Order. 3. On 11th January, 2013 the Petitioner was served with the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pydhonie Division, Mumbai, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause why he should not be externed from the limits of Brihan Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane for a period of two years. The Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned Externment Order on 30th March, 2013. The Petitioner carried the matter in Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by the Respondent No. 1 on 17th June, 2013. 4. The Externment order is issued under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The basis of the Externment Order is the conviction of the Petitioner in C.R. No. 198 of 2008 registered under Sections 307, 326, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The Externment Order also relies on two further criminal complaints against the Petitioner, being C.R. No. 294 of 2011 and C.R. No. 207 of 2012, both registered with the Pydhonie Police Station. In both those criminal complaints, the complainant was a relative of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was acquitted in both cases. Therefore, the only basis for the Externment Order is the conviction in the Criminal Case of 2008. 5. We have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Saste, learned APP, and we have, with their assistance, carefully considered the Petition and the various documents and the annexures thereto, as also the Affidavit in Reply. 6. In our view, Mr. Shaikh is justified in his contention that the Externment Order and the Appellate Order cannot be sustained. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Saste, learned APP, and we have, with their assistance, carefully considered the Petition and the various documents and the annexures thereto, as also the Affidavit in Reply. 6. In our view, Mr. Shaikh is justified in his contention that the Externment Order and the Appellate Order cannot be sustained. The externment order is passed under Section 57 (a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. That section has two requirements: first, a conviction of the proposed externee under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and second, a recorded satisfaction that the externing authority “has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted”. Both requirements are essential; it is not enough that only one is met. The words “reason to believe” mean that there must exist some cogent material, capable of being objectively tested, on which the authority has arrived at his subjective satisfaction. Further, that satisfaction must be as to the likelihood of the person committing a similar offence. Of necessity, this means that there must be some live link of temporal proximity — not necessarily immediacy — between the conviction and the justification for externment. 7. In the present instance, the Petitioner was convicted in 2009 in a criminal case registered in 2008. This cannot possibly form the basis of a proposed Externment Order in 2013. There is nothing to show that there is any imminent likelihood of his committing a similar offence. The other two cases mentioned in the show cause notice and Externment Order are of 2011 and 2012. Both resulted in Petitioner’s acquittal. They cannot form the basis of any satisfaction of the Petitioner being likely to commit a similar offence to that for which he was convicted in 2009. The Appellate Authority, unfortunately, gives this vital legal aspect only the most cursory attention. He says the later cases have been mentioned “merely to reflect criminal tendency of the Appellant”. They cannot form the basis of any satisfaction of the Petitioner being likely to commit a similar offence to that for which he was convicted in 2009. The Appellate Authority, unfortunately, gives this vital legal aspect only the most cursory attention. He says the later cases have been mentioned “merely to reflect criminal tendency of the Appellant”. There is little doubt that he has entirely misdirected himself on both facts and on law, though the law on the matter is extremely well-settled and requires no re-statement (DattatrayaRamchandra Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra, Cri WP No 1666 of 2013, decided on 21st August 2013; Karan Ramesh Ghuge v Dy Commissioner of Police, Cri WP No 1305 of 2013, decided on 4th July 2013). 8. We also find no justification whatsoever for the externment of the Petitioner from such a vast geographical area as the limits of Greater Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane, when the sole case in which there was a conviction against the Petitioner fell within the jurisdiction of the Shivaji Park Police Station, though initiated at the Pydhonie Police Station. The other two cases (in which the Petitioner was acquitted) were also within the local limits of the Pydhonie Police Station. The impugned orders are clearly excessive. There is nothing to connect the Petitioner and his alleged activities with those areas. In Abhishek Vikas Lonare v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Cri WP No. 2275 of 2013, decided on 22nd August 2013) this Court (One of us, Dharmadhikari, J, was a part of that Division Bench) held that there must be link between the externee’s supposedly criminal activities in one area and the consequences of those activities in other areas. There must be some material on the basis of which such a link could be said to have been established. We see no reason to depart from that view. 9. In our view, the Appellate Order shows a complete non-application of mind to these material and relevant factors. There is no consideration worth the name in the Appellate Order, which we find to be superficial, cryptic and wanting in application of mind. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Externment Order dated 30th March 2013 and the Appellate Order dated 17th June 2013, are both quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Externment Order dated 30th March 2013 and the Appellate Order dated 17th June 2013, are both quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.