JUDGMENT :- Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner questions order of externment dated 10th March, 2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, exteming him from Kopargaon, Sangamner, Shrirampur and Rahata in Ahmednagar district; Vaijapur in Aurangabad district and Yeola, Niphad and Sinnar in Nasik district, for a period of one year, confirmed by the Home Department on 11 th June, 2012. 3. Smt. Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly accepts that by efflux of time, as one year has lapsed, nothing remains. However, she asserts, the petitioner has good ground to challenge the externment order, which qualifies to be an excessive and warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. According to her, the nature of operation in criminal activities of the petitioner is confined to Kopargaon and action of exteming the petitioner from other talukas, referred above, violates his constitutional rights. 4. A show cause notice dated 23rd October, 2011, in terms of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, was served upon the petitioner. He was informed the proposed action under Section 56(1)(A)(B) of the Bombay Police Act. List of pending cases were communicated to him. The petitioner was also apprised of statement of discreet witnesses A and B with gist thereof and list of crimes faced by him. Reply was not filed in time; however, he has subsequently tendered reply on 2.11.2011. According to the petitioner, the prosecution in five cases is based on falsehood. He has never threatened any citizen in Kopargaon. He has no criminal antecedents. He has not intimidated anybody. He was acquitted in Crime No.158/2009. Crime No.205/2010 was false. Crime No. 159 was owing to political animosity. Crime No. 611/2010 was also within same corners. He asserted he is son of agriculturist; his father has a shop of selling tractors. He is the only son of his parent. His mother was elected on two occasions in Kopargaon Municipal Council and in ensuing e1cctions, either the petitioner or his mother were to get nominations in Assembly elections. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the judgments of this Court in the matter of Bharat s/o Asaram More Vs. Government of Maharshtra and Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 187/2011 dated 5.5.2011, wherein the said petitioner was extemed from adjoining talukas of Kopargaon and this Court, quashed such extemment. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the judgments of this Court in the matter of Bharat s/o Asaram More Vs. Government of Maharshtra and Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 187/2011 dated 5.5.2011, wherein the said petitioner was extemed from adjoining talukas of Kopargaon and this Court, quashed such extemment. In Criminal Writ Petition No.73/2009 dated 10.6.2009: [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2936) - Bharat Rambhau Vairage Vs. The State of Maharashtra was also dealing with externment order. In the said case, the petitioner was externed from adjoining district of Pune while his activities were confined to two police stations at Pune. In the said case, elementary principles of natural justice were not adhered to. In Criminal Writ Petition No.3953/2011 dated 11.5.2012 : 12012 ALL MR (Cri) 2250) - Baburao Changa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., this Court recorded externment order to be excessive for the reason that the petitioner in said case indulged in criminal activities within the jurisdiction of two' police stations, which formed a small part of Thane district. This Court observed, it was unreasonable to extern the petitioner from Thane, Mumbai and Raigad. The restraint was termed to be excessive. 6. There cannot be a contest on legal proposition advanced. However, each case projects its own dimensions and spheres. 7. In the matter of Bharat More, though it emerges that the offence or the activities were in Kopargaon, however, this Court has recorded, in Para 9, that the order of learned SDM or the Principal Secretary, were silent about the reasons for externment, therefore, there was infringement and the order was excessive. 8. In the matter of Bharat Vairage, the activities of said petitioner were confined to two police stations at Pune. However, he was externed from other two district. Reply of show cause notice was not considered. This Court recorded; there was breach of principles of natural justice. 9. In the matter of Bapurao Patil, the activities of said petitioner were confined to two police stations of Thane district. However, he was, due to externment, not in a position to attend the court in connection with four criminal cases pending against him. The externing authority did not grant general permission in the externment order about attendance to be recorded by the said petitioner. 10. The petitioner herein attributes to be a political worker, initially did not file reply in time. The externing authority did not grant general permission in the externment order about attendance to be recorded by the said petitioner. 10. The petitioner herein attributes to be a political worker, initially did not file reply in time. It was precisely on the ground of ill-health of his wife. He may have a political clout however, if the same is used in indulging in criminal activities, the petitioner is bound to face its consequences. 11. The chart of cases, to which the petitioner has also given reference, is highlighted in the affidavit in reply of Respondent no.2 - Police Inspector, Kopargaon police station - Shri Madhukar Thakaji Aute. The petitioner is apparently involved with offences of cheating deception, forgery, preparing false documents; assault to an individual; intimidation; threat and infraction of Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He has not even spared Government officials and faced the brunt for offence under Section 353 and 186 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Added to it is, when the order of externment was in force, he entered the prohibited area and invited action under Section 142 of the Bombay Police Act, giving rise to Crime NO.I-35/2012. The later offence speaks of mindset of the petitioner; disrespect and reek of arrogance against the law and order. He vividly and brazenly, in spite of prohibitory orders, against him, crossed the limits of prohibited areas. This was to demonstrate his influence, power and clout to the citizen and created panic. Such conduct cannot be countenanced and appreciated. 13. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, when received the report from the Police Inspector and the authorities concerned, was made aware of externing the petitioner for a period of two years from three specified district, i.e. Nasik, Ahmednagar and Aurangabad. The learned SDM, on perusal of the statement of under-cover witnesses; and the nature of crime, felt that externing the petitioner for a period of two years and from three districts, will be harsh and excessive and confined the same to period of one year, limiting the talukas of particular area. This shows application of mind, coupled with applying scale of principles of natural justice. This scale should not be stretched beyond individual perception. The principles of natural justice to the petitioner also means, it is to be equally applied to the authorities with whom he was transacting. The order of learned SDM specifies the reasons for externment. This shows application of mind, coupled with applying scale of principles of natural justice. This scale should not be stretched beyond individual perception. The principles of natural justice to the petitioner also means, it is to be equally applied to the authorities with whom he was transacting. The order of learned SDM specifies the reasons for externment. The talukas, from which the petitioner has been externed, have a geographical proximity of Kopargraon. Fast communication system and transport feasibility inform moving to a particular area within a span of 30-40 minutes. Considering the consanguinity of area of Sinnar, Sangamner or Vaijapur to Kopargaon, the order, therefore, cannot be branded to be excessive. The Appellate Authority considered all the situations and did not agree to the petitioner. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.