JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, as mentioned in the petition, are as under:- The petitioner herein was a witness in C.R. No. 43 of 2017 wherein his business partner was murdered by a group of one Dorai within the vicinity of Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. On 30.06.2017, the Petitioner addressed letter to the Senior Police Inspector, Aarey Police Station and D.C.P., Zone XII seeking police protection for himself and his family in view of murder of his business partner. In between 19.10.2017 and 8.7.2019, the Petitioner was arraigned as accused in the case despite the Aarey Police Station and its officers being aware that the Petitioner was not present at the spot of incident. However, deliberately at the instance of one A.P.I. Sunil Lokhande, the petitioner’s name was added in the cases. On 16.10.2018, the petitioner and his brothers were assaulted and were hospitalized for severe injuries and F.I.R. under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the Petitioner against Dorai and few others whereas a cross complaint was registered against the petitioner by Aarey Police Station. On 8.07.2019, cross First Information Reports were registered against the petitioner and his associates and also against Shiva Shetty and his associates being C.R. Nos. 129 of 2019 and 130 of 2019. On 4.10.2019, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court. On 14.07.2020, the Petitioner was externed from Mumbai city for two years. On 27.07.2020, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court seeking quashing of externment order. On 22.08.2020, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. In the month of September, 2020, the petitioner filed an externment appeal bearing Externment Appeal No. 48 of 2020. On 05.11.2020, the appellate authority heard the appeal and closed the same for orders. The appellate authority by an order dated 12.01.2021, confirmed the externment order thereby externing the petitioner for two years, which severely hampered the petitioner’s right to carry on legitimate business and freedom of movement. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned externment order is excessive inasmuch as petitioner’s alleged activities are stated to be in Aarey Colony, Goregaon, Mumbai. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned externment order is excessive inasmuch as petitioner’s alleged activities are stated to be in Aarey Colony, Goregaon, Mumbai. However, the petitioner has been externed from Mumbai City, Mumbai suburban and Thane Districts. It is submitted that there is no live link between the prejudicial activities and the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent-authority; the subjective satisfaction has not been arrived at before passing the externment order; the material which was considered while passing the first externment order could not have been considered while passing the second externment order. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments. 4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Pappu vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 Cri. L.J. 1586 2. Ganesh Nilkanth Patil vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cri. W.P. No. 2841 of 2012 3. Akash Ramesh Dawande vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 1268 4. Masiullha Abdul Mohid Idrisi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cri. W.P. No. 2444 of 2013 5. Ayub Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai and Others, 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1179 6. Ganesh Murgesh Bajantri vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 1460 7. Praful Bhausaheb Yadav vs. Shri K.K. Pathak, 2013 SCC Online Bom. 188 8. Vinay @ Mukka Chawaria vs. Divisional Commissioner, 2016 SCC Online Bom. 9884 9. Rajesh S/o Jiwan Jangle vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC Online Bom. 9254 10. Zahoor Ismail Fakie vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1109 11. Santoshkumar Shri Rampratap Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 11617 12. Mohamad Yusuf Mohmad Ibrahim Momin vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 4053 13. Sanjay Pandurang Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (5) Mh. L.J. 436 14. Shakeela vs. The State, 2014 SCC Online Del. 469 15. Umar Mohamed Malbari vs K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1988 Mh. L.J. 1034 16. Ravi S/o Ramdas Aher vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Online Bom. 6586 5. 4053 13. Sanjay Pandurang Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (5) Mh. L.J. 436 14. Shakeela vs. The State, 2014 SCC Online Del. 469 15. Umar Mohamed Malbari vs K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1988 Mh. L.J. 1034 16. Ravi S/o Ramdas Aher vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Online Bom. 6586 5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State relying upon the reasons assigned in the impugned order submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner are causing danger to the lives of the people residing in the vicinity of Aarey colony. The reasons given in the impugned order are self explanatory and based upon documents and evidence. Therefore, the learned APP submitted that the petition may be rejected. 6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State and with their able assistance, we have carefully perused the pleadings and the grounds taken in the petition, the annexure thereto and the reasons assigned by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned externment order. It appears that the following four offences were registered against the petitioner: S. No. Police Station C.R. Nos. Current Status 1. Aarey 33/13 - Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC Subjudice 149/PW-13 2. Chunabhatti 160/15 - Sections 363, 364A of IPC Subjudice Sessions Case No. 184/13 3. Aarey 137/2017 - Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of IPC Under Investigation 4. Aarey 141/2017 - Sections 353 of IPC read with sections 110, 112, 117 of MCOCA Under Investigation 7. It appears that the above mentioned offences are registered in the year 2013, 2015 and 2017 and the externment proceedings are initiated in the year 2020. We have carefully perused the externment order passed on 14.7.2020 and find that there is no discussion showing a nexus between the said offences and externment proceedings. Secondly, in the impugned order, there is no elaborate discussion that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. Thirdly, the petitioner has been externed from the revenue boundaries of Mumbai city, Mumbai suburban and Thane districts. Secondly, in the impugned order, there is no elaborate discussion that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. Thirdly, the petitioner has been externed from the revenue boundaries of Mumbai city, Mumbai suburban and Thane districts. No doubt, the authority can extern the externee from the adjoining districts, however, the authority has to assign reasons as to why the externment from the adjoining districts is warranted though the offences are registered only in the police station in respect of alleged activities in Aarey colony. In the impugned order, there is no such discussion. It appears that the first in-camera statement was recorded on 7.1.2020 and the second in-camera statement was recorded on 9.1.2020. However, the externment order was passed on 14.7.2020. There is a gap of about 6 months in between and, therefore, the live link between the prejudicial activities and the ultimate order of externment has been snapped. 8. There is no specific discussion in the impugned order that due to the alleged activities and fear of the petitioner, the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. 9. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of externment cannot legally sustain and therefore, the said order dated 12.1.2020 confirming the externment order dated 14.7.2020 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute and Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.