JUDGMENT : A.M. Badar, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By the instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.AR/EA- 102/2015 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/externee and confirming the order dated 31st August, 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur-2, Solapur whereby the petitioner / externee was directed in exercise of powers under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to remove himself from the territorial limits of Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts for a period of one year. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the present petition can be summarised thus :- On 7th June, 2014, a proposal (record page 21) came to be moved by the Police Inspector, Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur came to be requested for initiating proceedings for externment of the petitioner from Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts for maintaining peace and tranquillity. On receipt of the said proposal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Akkalkot to make necessary inquiries and submit report. Accordingly, after making necessary inquiries, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Akkalkot submitted report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1st October, 2015. Thereafter, vide notices dated 7th October, 2014 and 18th June, 2015, the petitioner was informed about the general nature of the material allegations against him and reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation was granted to him. As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the show cause notices, vide order dated 31st August, 2015, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur-2, Solapur was in exercise of powers section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 directed the petitioner to remove himself from Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts for a period of one year from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Appellate Authority i.e. learned Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pune vide the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal bearing No.AR/ EA-102/2015. Hence the instant petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Appellate Authority i.e. learned Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pune vide the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal bearing No.AR/ EA-102/2015. Hence the instant petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the alleged offences and there is no live link to the past prejudicial activities to pass the impugned order of externment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned order is based on stale and old ground. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of externing the petitioner from three Districts is an excessive order passed without giving any reasons for the same. 5. As against this, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned order by contending the movement and act of the petitioner were causing alarm and danger to the persons as well as property of the public at large. Learned APP further argued that in all five offences covered by Chapter XVI and XVII came to be registered against the petitioner and there is a reign of terror of the petitioner against citizens of the locality. The petitioner has no fear of law and he is in habit of commission of crime thereby terrorising the residents. According to the learned APP, the question of maintaining of public order had arisen because of the habit of the petitioner to commit grave offences. 6. We have also perused the record made available by the learned APP. 7. At the outset, it needs to be examined whether the impugned order of externing the petitioner from three Districts viz. Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad is suffering from vices of excessiveness. Perusal of the proposal dated 7th June, 2014 by the Police Inspector, South Akkalkaot Police Station, Solapur acting upon which the externment proceedings against the petitioner came to be initiated goes to show that in all five offences against the petitioner were registered at South Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur. One amongst them came to be registered in the year 2009 whereas the rest of the offences came to be registered against the petitioner in the year 2013. One amongst them came to be registered in the year 2009 whereas the rest of the offences came to be registered against the petitioner in the year 2013. The proposal for externment of the petitioner shows that the alleged activities of the petitioner were confined to the territorial jurisdiction of South Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur. 8. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 goes to show that out of the five crimes registered against the petitioner, in one case, he was convicted, whereas, two of them are pending in the Court. The other two crimes were under investigation by the police. As stated earlier, all these criminal cases were arising out of offence registered at South Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate so also the impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner confirming the said order externing the petitioner from Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts makes it clear that no reasons are assigned by the authorities for externing the petitioner from the territorial limits of three Districts particularly when the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner are confined to territorial limits of South Akkalkot police station, Solapur. The learned Division Commissioner has not assigned any reasons or recorded his subjective satisfaction for externment of the petitioner from the three Districts viz. Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad. On the contrary, last but one para of the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate reflect the opinion of the said authority that the petitioner needs to be externed from Solapur District only for a period of one year. However, ultimately the externing authority as well as the appellate authority decided to extern the petition from three Districts without application of mind to the relevant facts. As such, it is crystal clear that the impugned order of externing the petitioner from three Districts is excessive order. 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote the observations of this Court in the case of Shri Umar Mohmmed Malbari v. K.P. Gaikwad and Another, 1988 (2) Bom. C.R. 724 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment read thus :- "7. In our judgment, there is considerable merit in the contention of Shri Mohite and the same will have to be accepted. C.R. 724 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment read thus :- "7. In our judgment, there is considerable merit in the contention of Shri Mohite and the same will have to be accepted. If the activities indulged in by the petitioner were restricted within the Taluka of Bhiwandi within the Thane Commissioner ate, 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 struck down because no greater restraint on personal liberty can be permitted within than is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In the case of Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, reported in 71 Bom.L.R. at page 79 which case was cited with approval in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 630 , on the facts of that case the externment order was set aside on the ground that it was far wider than was justified by the exigencies of the case. The activities of the externee therein were confined to the city of Pandharpur and yet the externment order covered an area as extensive as the districts of Sholapur, Satara, and Poona. These areas were far widely removed from the locality in which the externee had committed his illegal acts. The exercise of the power was, therefore, arbitrary and excessive, the order having been passed without reference to the purpose of the externment was quashed. 8. Shri Khothari, the learned 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. This would be a case where appropriate areas of externment can be substituted with the areas contemplated in the impugned order of externment. In our judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention of Shri Kothari. The High Court, when it issues the high prerogative writ of certiorari, it directs the judicial Tribunal against which it is acting to transmit its record to the Court and if necessary to quash the order which the Tribunal has passed. In our judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention of Shri Kothari. The High Court, when it issues the high prerogative writ of certiorari, it directs the judicial Tribunal against which it is acting to transmit its record to the Court and if necessary to quash the order which the Tribunal has passed. It must not be forgotten that in issuing the writ this Court is not acting as a Court of appeal. It is exercising supervisory powers conferred upon it, and those powers are exercised by means of issuing high prerogative writs. But the power and jurisdiction of the Court is limited and the same cannot extend to the powers of an Appellate Court. This Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions 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. Mohamed Usman v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, LIV Bom. L.R. at Page 513." 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and upon perusal of the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the impugned order of externment of the petitioner from the three Districts is excessive and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence the order. (i) The impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.AR/EA-102/2015 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed and consequently the order dated 31st August, 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur No.2, Solapur in exterment proceedings No.MAG/SR/06/2015 externing the petitioner from Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts for a period of one year is quashed and set aside. (ii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).