JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---This petition, challenging the order of externment, can be allowed on the short ground that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act is bad in law and vague and, therefore, the order of externment passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that on 5th September 1994, the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Sakinaka Division, Bombay issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act alleging in general that he has again started prejudicial activities which are dangerous to the residents of the localities, without giving particulars of his alleged activities. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his evidence and produced witnesses. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 20th March 1995 issued order of externment externing the petitioner from Bombay and Thane Districts. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Government of Maharashtra by the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, by the order passed on 28th April 1995, the respondent No. 4 -Appellate Authority permitted the petitioner to enter into the prohibited areas. The said appeal was, however, dismissed by order dated 15th March 1996 confirming the order of externment passed by the respondent No. 1. The said orders are challenged in this petition on various grounds.

3. The petition was admitted by this Court on 13th March 1997 staying the order of externment on the condition that the petitioner shall report to the Sakinaka Police Station twice in a week. Though the petition is pending in this Court since the year 1997, no reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr. Marvadi, took me through the contents of the show-cause notice dated 5-9-1994, a copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit "A" to the petition. From the contents of show-cause notice, it is clear that no particulars of offences committed by the petitioner or of his activities with regard to the dates of offences and the incidents have been mentioned but it is stated only in general that his acts and movements are causing and/or are calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to the residents of the localities. In support of his contention Mr. Marvadi relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Chandar Dayaldas Sindhi v. Shri. M. W. Chitale, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone II, Kalyan)1, reported in 1984(2) Bom.C.R. 682. In the said decision the Division Bench of this Court has held that the order of externment is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness of the show-cause notice as it does not enable the petitioner to exercise his valuable right of giving explanation to the charges levelled against him as contemplated by section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The order of externment passed following the show-cause notice also repeats the vague allegations made in the show-cause notice. In the circumstances, the externment order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. In the result, petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b) of the petition.

Petition allowed.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document