JUDGMENT 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 against the petitioner pertained to Mira Road Police Station, Thane from the period 2009 to 2011 and that there was not a single offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in any of the other districts viz. Pune, Nashik, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District. We are conscious of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra [1973 Mh.L.J.]. It is true, that the area of externment can be larger than the area to which the activities of the externee are or were confined, as the object is to isolate the externee. We are conscious of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra [1973 Mh.L.J.]. It is true, that the area of externment can be larger than the area to which the activities of the externee are or were confined, as the object is to isolate the externee. It is true, that the District of Greater Mumbai and Thane are intimately connected, due to the existence of several factors, such as continuous availability of suburban trains, taxis plying to and from Greater Bombay and by bus services operating between Greater Bombay and several parts of Thane District, so as to form a single unit. Therefore, the Apex Court in Pandharinath's case (supra) proceeded on the basis of an established intimate connection between Greater Mumbai and Thane District. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we may note that the areas to which the order of externment is to operate must be chosen by the Externing Authority, with a view to merit the situation created by the objectionable acts of the persons sought to be externed. It would not be out of place to refer to the decision of BaluShivling Dombe v/s. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur [1969 Mh.L.J 387]. The challenge in the said petition was to the order of externment of the petitioner therein, who was a resident of Pandharpur in the District of Solapur. The order of externment passed against the petitioner in that case extended to the Districts of Solapur, Satara and Pune. There was challenge in that petition to the order of externment, on the ground, that the order was excessive and that Section 56 of the Act of 1951 authorised externment of a person outside the area within the local limits of jurisdiction of the authority making the order as "such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto." The Division Bench of this Court in Balu's case (supra) held,that the words used in Section 56 of the Act of 95, cannot be so construed so as to enable the authority to extend the area of externment without reference to the purpose of the externment. In paragraph 9 of the said decision, the Division Bench held thus :- “9. There is a third ground why the impugned order requires to be set aside. Supposing that the two grounds mentioned in cls. In paragraph 9 of the said decision, the Division Bench held thus :- “9. There is a third ground why the impugned order requires to be set aside. Supposing that the two grounds mentioned in cls. 2 (h) and 2 (i) of the notice permit the externment of the petitioner, it is difficult to understand why the Divisional Magistrate extended the order to the three revenue districts of Sholapur, Poona and Satara. Section 56 authorises the externment of a person outside the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the authority making the order as "such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto." These words, however, cannot be so interpreted as to enable the authority to extend the area of externment without reference to the purpose of the externment. In a sense, the whole State of Maharashtra is contiguous to any area within that State. If the authority concerned is not to have an arbitrary and unguided discretion in deciding the area of externment it must follow that the area must be so chosen as to meet the situation created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed. Such an interpretation is also necessary in order that Section 56 may be in conformity with Art. 19(5) of the Constitution referred to above. The restriction placed by Section 56 on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction, unless the area of externment is restricted to the requirement created by the movements or acts of the person to be externed. The allegation contained in the notice in the present case was that the illegal acts of the petitioner had led to an atmosphere of danger and alarm "in Pandharpur city and the surrounding area." The two illegal acts on which the Divisional Magistrate relied were confined to Pandharpur city. No reasons have been given or suggested by the Divisional Magistrate for extending the area, not only outside the Pandharpur taluka, but to the district of Sholapur, and the districts of Poona and Satara as well. 11. Thus, the Division Bench in Balu's case (supra) found that there were no reasons given or suggested by the Authority for extending the area of externment besides the District of Solapur to the Districts of Pune and Satara. 11. Thus, the Division Bench in Balu's case (supra) found that there were no reasons given or suggested by the Authority for extending the area of externment besides the District of Solapur to the Districts of Pune and Satara. The said decision in Balu's case (supra) has not been disturbed by the Apex Court. In the case of Balu (supra), this Court held, that liberal interpretation cannot be given to the phraseology used in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as in a sense the whole State of Maharashtra can be said to be contiguous to any area within the State. It may be noted, that in the case of Pandharinath (supra), the Apex Court has not adopted the test of geographical proximity. The test adopted was based on several factors such as availability of easy modes of transport like suburban trains and more importantly intimate connection. It is pertinent to note, that what was accepted as correct by the Apex Court in Pandharinath's case (supra) are the several decisions of this Court rendered after considering the local colour and condition, holding that Greater Mumbai and Thane are intimately connected and form, to say, a single unit. 12. In Ganpat@ G. Katare v. Assistant Commissioner of Police (2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 44) this Court in Para 12 observed thus: “12. There cannot be any dispute that considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the order of externment need not be restricted to the area in which illegal activities of the externee are carried on. A larger area may always form part of externment order. In a case where activities are confined to particular district and geographically contiguous district is shown to be intimately connected to the said district, the order may extend the both districts. Mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities by the externee. The decision of the Apex Court in Pandharinath's case proceeds on the basis of established intimate connection between Mumbai and Thane Districts. The area to which order of externment is to operate must be chosen with a view to meet the situation created by the objectionable acts of the person sought to be externed.” 13. The decision of the Apex Court in Pandharinath's case proceeds on the basis of established intimate connection between Mumbai and Thane Districts. The area to which order of externment is to operate must be chosen with a view to meet the situation created by the objectionable acts of the person sought to be externed.” 13. We may state that there cannot be any dispute, that considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the order of externment need not be restricted to the area, in which the illegal activities of the externee are carried out, and that a larger area can always form part of an externment order. Thus, an order of externment may extend to other Districts i.e. geographically contiguous districts, which are shown to be intimately connected. However, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and the order passed by the externing authority must record the reasons for the same. 14. We have perused the petition along with the annexures thereto and after giving our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of externment dated 19th December, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division, Thane and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26th April, 2013 ought to be quashed and set aside, as the same suffers from the vice of excessive jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 15. In the present case, the petitioner’s area of activities as is evident from the chart set out in para 8, were confined only to Mira Road Police Station, Thane District, whereas the order of externment relates and extends to other Districts i.e. Pune, Nashik, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District. As observed earlier, mere geographical proximity would not be a ground to pass an order of externment. The impugned order of externment merely records that there are facilities of communication and transport available between the said districts and the geographical proximity of the four Districts i.e. Pune, Nashik, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban to Thane District. Infact, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban can be considered to be intimately connected with Thane District, by means of communication, transport and proximity, but Pune and Nashik Districts are areas far widely removed from the locality, i.e. Mira Road, where the externee had allegedly committed illegal acts i.e. from 2009 to 2011. 16. Infact, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban can be considered to be intimately connected with Thane District, by means of communication, transport and proximity, but Pune and Nashik Districts are areas far widely removed from the locality, i.e. Mira Road, where the externee had allegedly committed illegal acts i.e. from 2009 to 2011. 16. There is nothing on record in the Impugned Order of externment to show that considering the facts peculiar to the petitioner there was necessity of extending the order to other districts, i.e. beyond Thane to Brihan Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Pune and Nashik Districts. The impugned order of externment also does not record even preferably the necessity of extending the order to other districts beyond Thane. The impugned order, apart from stating geographical proximity of Thane District to other Districts and the means of transport available between the Districts does not record the objectionable activities of the externee in the Districts of Pune and Nashik, Brihan Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban nor does it record the necessity of extending the order to other Districts i.e. it was necessary to extern the externee to meet the exigencies/situation created by him by his objectionable and prejudicial acts. Therefore, in our view, in the absence of any material data to the contrary, the order of externment is clearly excessive in as much as it also extends to other districts. Infact, Thane District, Brihan Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, may be considered as a single unit in a given case, but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Pune and Nashik are so intimately connected to Mira Road in District Thane and infact that is not even the case made out by the State. Considering the nature of cases listed against the petitioner, even assuming his involvement in them, were not grave enough to resort to such a drastic measure of externment of `the petitioner from the vast areas of Brihan Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Pune and Nashik Districts in the facts and circumstances of this case. An externment order which is outrageously disproportionate to the alleged offence/criminal acts cannot be sustained in law. 17. It is well settled that an excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down as there can be no greater restraint on personal liberty than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. An externment order which is outrageously disproportionate to the alleged offence/criminal acts cannot be sustained in law. 17. It is well settled that an excessive order can undoubtedly be struck down as there can be no greater restraint on personal liberty than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Exercise of power by the Externing Authority cannot be arbitrary or excessive and the order of externment passed ought to be with reference to the purpose of externment and not mere geographical proximity. In view of the findings recorded by us, we are of the opinion, that in the facts of the present case, 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 confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 26th April, 2013 ought to be quashed and set aside. 18. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).