JUDGMENT : Sandipkumar C. More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission. 2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2021 the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.05.2021 which is common to both the petitioners, and the order dated 12.082021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Externment Appeal No. 60/2021. Similarly, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1364 of 2021 the petitioner therein is challenging the same order dated 27.05.2021 passed by Superintendent of Police, Dhule i.e. respondent No. 3 and also the order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Externment Appeal No. 61/2021 by Divisional Commissioner, Nashik i.e. respondent No. 2. 3. It appears that both the petitioners are real brothers and the notice dated 11.01.2021 mentioning that the petitioners are required to be externed from Dhule, Jalgaon, Nandurbar, Ahmednagar and Nashik districts for the period of two years is issued against them. Further, notices dated 09.03.2021 issued to the petitioners calling their explanation as to why they should not externed from Dhule district for the period of two years are also sent to the petitioners separately. However, in respect of the said notice respondent No.3 in both the petitions has passed common order dated 27.05.2021 in Externment Case No.55/Ext./1219/2021. The petitioners in both the petitions then fled separate appeals against that order bearing Appeal No.60/2021 and Appeal No. 61/2021 respectively before respondent No. 2 in both the petitions. Since the main order of externment is common for both the petitions and it relates to the offences committed by the gang of both the petitioners, we find it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by common judgment. 4. The background facts leading to these petitions are as under : The petitioners claim that they are resident of Sakri Taluka and peace loving persons. According to them, they never indulged into any criminal activity which cause grievance to the public at large. The Superintendent of Police, Dhule i.e. respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 30.12.2020 and thereby directed respondent No.4 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhule to conduct an inquiry in respect of the proposal of externment of the petitioners as per Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Accordingly respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 11.01.2021 to the petitioners and mentioned the crimes registered against them in that notice. Accordingly respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 11.01.2021 to the petitioners and mentioned the crimes registered against them in that notice. It was expressed in the said notice dated 11.01.2021 that it would be proper to extern the petitioners from fve districts namely Dhule, Jalgaon, Nandurbar, Ahmednagar and Nashik for the period of two years. When both the petitioners replied the said notice separately, respondent No. 3 issued separate notices to the petitioners dated 09.03.2021 calling explanation from the petitioners as to why they should not be externed from Dhule district for the period of two years. Again the petitioners separately replied the said notice but, respondent No. 3, under the first impugned order dated 27.05.2021, ordered externment of the petitioners from entire Dhule district, Nandurbar Taluka, Malegaon and Satana Talukas of Nashik district for the period of one year. Against the said order the petitioners namely Govind and Mithun preferred Externment Appeal No. 60/2021 and Externment Appeal No. 61/2021 respectively before respondent No. 2, but under separate orders, both dated 12.08.2021, respondent No.2 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik dismissed those appeals. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the real brothers and belong to tribal community and they are also acting workers of Adiwasi Bhil Eklavya Sanghatna. They are peace loving persons and do not indulge into any criminal activity which causes grievance to the public at large. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed since there is absolutely no application of mind by the concerned Authorities. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners are involved in the crimes mentioned in the show cause notice dated 11.01.2021 being members of gang. He further submits that out of four crimes registered against petitioner Govinda, he is already acquitted from one of those crimes. Further, there are only two crimes wherein the petitioners are jointly impleaded as an accused. He further submits that there are also contradictions in respect of the areas mentioned in notices dated 11.01.2021 and 09.03.2021 being the proposed area of externment. He further submits that the impugned order of externment is in respect of an excessive area for which there is no material on record to that effect. He further submits that there are also contradictions in respect of the areas mentioned in notices dated 11.01.2021 and 09.03.2021 being the proposed area of externment. He further submits that the impugned order of externment is in respect of an excessive area for which there is no material on record to that effect. Finally he submits that there is no subjective satisfaction of the Authorities in the impugned orders since the crimes registered against the petitioners are not of collective nature but the same are more individualistic in nature. 6. On the contrary, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the petitions by fling affidavits-in-reply. Learned A.P.P. submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioners to show that they have indulged in criminal activities being members of gang and their behavour is deterrent to public at large. As such, the learned supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 7. We have carefully gone through the material placed on record. It appears from the notice dated 11.01.2021 issued commonly to both the petitioners that the externment proposed against the petitioners is based on the following crimes mentioned therein : (I) Govinda Dashrath Sonawane : Sr. No. Sakri P.S. Crime No. Under Sections Court Case No. Result 1. 88/2008 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 288/2008 Pending 2. 69/2016 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 72/2016 Pending 3. 101/2018 354, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 6/2019 Pending 4. 52/2020 353, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 291/2020 Pending (II) Mithun Dashrath Sonawane : Sr. No. Sakri P.S. Crime No. Under Sections Court Case No. Result 1. 69/2016 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC. 72/2016 Pending 2. 101/2018 354, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 6/2019 Pending 3. 52/2020 353, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 291/2020 Pending However, it appears from the judgment in R.C.C. No.288/2008 dated 31.03.2010 that the petitioner Govinda Dashrath Sonawane has already been acquitted from the said case arising out of Crime No. 88/2008 of Sakri Police Station which is at Sr. No. 1. Further, it also appears that in Crime No.69/2016 Govinda Dashrath Sonawane is not at all arrayed as an accused. On the contrary, the said crime appears to be registered against the petitioner Mithun Dashrath Sonawane i.e. his brother. No. 1. Further, it also appears that in Crime No.69/2016 Govinda Dashrath Sonawane is not at all arrayed as an accused. On the contrary, the said crime appears to be registered against the petitioner Mithun Dashrath Sonawane i.e. his brother. As such, there are only two joint crimes at present against both the petitioners which are Crime No.101/2018 and Crime No. 52/2020. Moreover nothing is mentioned as to who are other accused in the said crime. The Authorities thus claimed that the petitioners are the Leader and Member of the gang respectively. Further, it also evident from the said notice dated 11.01.2021 that the externment of the petitioner was proposed from five districts namely Dhule, Jalgaon, Nandurbar, Ahmednagar and Nashik for the period of two years. However, in the subsequent notice dated 09.03.2021 respondent No.3 proposed externment of petitioners only from Dhule district for the period of two years. It is also significant to note that respondent No. 2, while passing order dated 27.05.2021 which is common for both the petitioners, ordered without any explanation that both the petitioners are required to be externed from entire Dhule district, Taluka Nandurbar of Nandurbar district and Talukas Malegaon and Satana of Nashik district. It is extremely important to note that the criminal activities alleged in the notice dated 11.01.2021 are restricted only to the area under Sakri Police Station, and therefore, the order dated 27.05.2021 passed by respondent No. 3 definitely appears contrary to the requisitions made in notices dated 11.01.2021 and 09.03.2021. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramrao Jairam Rathod vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Murtizapur, Dist. Akola reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1677, wherein it is observed in para-4 as below: “4. Before an externment order is issued under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Act. As a necessary corollary, therefore, the externment order must be passed on the basis of material referred to in the show cause notice else the show cause notice itself would be meaningless. Therefore, the order should not be based on considerations other than those mentioned in show cause notice”. However, in the instant case there are contradictions in the show-cause notices as well as the order of externment passed by respondent No. 3. Therefore, the order should not be based on considerations other than those mentioned in show cause notice”. However, in the instant case there are contradictions in the show-cause notices as well as the order of externment passed by respondent No. 3. Initially it was proposed that the petitioners are liable to be externed from five districts. Then in the second notice dated 09.03.2021 it was proposed that the petitioners are liable to be externed from only Dhule district and ultimately the externing authority considered the externment of the petitioners from Dhule district and some Talukas of Nandurbar and Nashik districts. Though such externment is proposed by the authorities below, but in all the impugned orders there is no material discussed by the authorities as to why the petitioners are liable to be externed from such larger area. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the issue of externment involving larger area, has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) Umar Mohammed Malbari vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and another, 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 578. (ii) Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 510 . (iii) Smt. Gulshan Arif Tase vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane Division and another 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3209. In the case of Umar Mohammed Malbari (supra), this Court in para 7 and 8 has observed as follows : “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 Commissionerate, 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 Domble vs. The Divisional Magistrate, reported in 1969 Mh.L.J. 387=77 BLR at page 79 which case was cited with approval in the case of Pandharinath reported in AIR 1973 SC page 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. 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 BLR at Page 513”. Further this Court, in the case of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police (supra), in para 9 and 12 has observed as under : “9. In the other two Petitions the main submission is that the orders of externment are excessive. Mohamed Usman v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, LIV BLR at Page 513”. Further this Court, in the case of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police (supra), in para 9 and 12 has observed as under : “9. In the other two Petitions the main submission is that the orders of externment are excessive. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1598 of 2005, reliance is placed on prejudical activities of the Petitioner in the area falling within Mulund Police Station at Mumbai and in the adjoining area. The order of externment has been passed which relates to the districts of Greater Bombay, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Raigad. It is stated in the order of externment that convenient modes of transport are easily available for connecting Mumbai with Thane, Navi Mumbai and Raigad districts as well as with other adjoining districts. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1615 of 2005, the perusal of the order of externment shows that the activities of the Petitioner which are relied upon in the show cause notice relate to various parts of city of Ambernath, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane. The order of externment however, relates to districts Thane, Greater Bombay, Bombay Suburban and Raigad district. It must be noted as a matter of fact that no specific reasons are assigned in the said order for extending the order to Raigad and Mumbai districts. 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 Padharinath'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”. The decision of the Apex Court in Padharinath'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”. In the case of Smt. Gulshan Arif Tase (supra) this Court has made following observations in para-4 : “4. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is a well settled position in law that if an order of externemnt is passed externing the petitioner from five districts and no reference is made to the prejudicial activity committed by him in those districts in the show cause notice, the said order is excessive and on that ground alone, the order of externment is liable to be quashed while exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. It is an admitted position that the show cause notice does not refer to any such activity by the petitioner in other districts except village Kashimira and District Thane. The order, therefore, is clearly excessive and is beyond the scope of the show cause notice which has been issued by the respondents. Secondly, the order of externment relies on certain in-camera statements. No reference has been made about the said in-camera statements. It is, thus, obvious that the externing authority has relied on certain material which is not referred to in the show cause notice. The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, therefore, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. On this ground alone, the order of externment is liable to be quashed”. 10. On going through all the aforesaid observations it is sufficiently made clear that mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities of the externee. Further, excessive order so passed cannot be curtailed by this Court and made applicable only to the area wherein the criminal activities of the externee found. On going through both the impugned orders, it is clearly evident that neither respondent No. 3 nor respondent No. 2 has explained satisfactorily that the externment of the petitioners is also required from Talukas of Nashik and Nandurbar districts. On going through both the impugned orders, it is clearly evident that neither respondent No. 3 nor respondent No. 2 has explained satisfactorily that the externment of the petitioners is also required from Talukas of Nashik and Nandurbar districts. Moreover, though the criminal activities appear to be restricted only to the area of Sakri police station, their externment from the entire Dhule district definitely appears excessive in nature. In this respect there appears total non application of mind by the authorities. It is only mentioned in the orders that some statements of confidential witnesses were also verified, but nothing is mentioned in the order dated 27.05.2021 as to how and in what manner those witnesses were deterred by the petitioners. Further, from the F.I.R. in Crime No. 101/2018 it is evident that the nature of crime is against individual person and it does not involve public at large. Therefore, it is apparent from the record that the petitioners have been externed only on the basis of two crimes which are individualistic in nature and not in collective form. Moreover, the externment order definitely appears excessive in nature without any explanation by the authorities. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 638 of 2021 (Shoeb @ Sharif @ Shafya Khan Asif Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) dated 06.09.2021 (Coram : V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.), wherein it is observed in para Nos. 22 and 24 as below : “22. That would mean that an externment order must be based upon some material, that it must refer to some material on record, and if that is done, the requirements of law are met and the judicial review would go no further to examine sufficiency or otherwise of such material. In the case in hand, the impugned externment order does not refer to such material on record. What were the compelling circumstances and the reasons for the competent authority to extern the petitioners from a much larger area when their illegal activities are restricted to Chalisgaon Police Station. The show cause notice issued to the petitioners and others under section 55 of the Act of 1951, mentioned about externment from Jalgaon District. There is no reference for a proposal of externment from Dhule District. The show cause notice issued to the petitioners and others under section 55 of the Act of 1951, mentioned about externment from Jalgaon District. There is no reference for a proposal of externment from Dhule District. Even then, the authority has externed the petitioners from entire Jalgaon District and Dhule District without having material on record. We could understand if the externment order of the petitioners was restricted to Jalgaon District, in view of the reference of two criminal cases registered against the petitioners recently in the year 2019 and 2020. The authority seems to have exercised his discretion to extern the petitioners from a much larger area arbitrarily, unreasonably and without having any material on record. It reflects non-application of mind by the competent authority. 24. As discussed herein before, whatever criminal cases are there against the petitioners, did not show that they have indulged in criminal activities as a group and either of them is held as a member of the gang. The material relied upon by the authority did not make out any case against the petitioners as a member or chief of gang or a body of a persons simply on the basis of two crimes referred above cannot be said to be sufficient material to brand them as gang members or chief of the gang”. 12. In the instant case also there are only two cases against the petitioners on the basis of which the conclusion has been drawn that they have indulged in serious criminal activities as a group or gang. Therefore, we find that there is no sufficient material available on record for drawing the conclusion that the petitioners are running gang for committing deterrent criminal activities. Therefore, considering all these aspects and in view of the observations made in the above-cited cases, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of externment passed by the authorities below are definitely without sufficient material against the petitioners. Moreover, those orders appear excessive in nature without there being any satisfactory explanation by the authorities. Further, no aspect of subjective satisfaction is apparent from those orders. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order. Moreover, those orders appear excessive in nature without there being any satisfactory explanation by the authorities. Further, no aspect of subjective satisfaction is apparent from those orders. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2021 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1364 of 2021 are hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause [A] in both the petitions. (ii) Rule made absolute in the above terms. (iii) Both the Criminal Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.