IMPORTANT POINT
Notice for externment under Section 59 of Bombay Police Act. 1951 for proposed externment order should contain sufficient particulars in order to enable the citizen to offer his explanation. It should not be vague nor it should contain mis-statements.

JUDGMENT

Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the externment order dated March 9, 1988, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara and the order dated May 21, 1988 in appeal by the Government of Gujarat, contending mainly that the externing authority did not apply mind, relied on extraneous matters, did not give sufficient opportunity to explain the circumstances etc.

2. The Supdt. of Police, Vadodara, by notice dated December 16, 1986, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Vadodara City, Vadodara Rural, and contiguous Districts of Kheda, Panchmahal and Bharuch, for a period of two years as, according to the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is a dangerous, fanatic and strong-headed person, committing offences involving force and violence from June 1986 to the date of the notice in Vadi Maru Falia, within the jurisdiction of the Vadi

Police Station, Vadodara. It was also alleged in the notice that the petitioner usually keeps illicit liquor in his possession and sells liquor and intoxicating drugs and drinks and in order to carry on the business of prohibited articles without any restraint, he quarrels with the innocent people passing by under false excuses and causes them hurt and by pointing out knife, threatens them to commit murder and thereby create an atmosphere of fear and terror and caused disturbance to public order, It is also alleged in the notice that he suspects people passing by as the informants of police or alleges against them that because of their movement, his customers for liquor go away and under that excuse, stops people passing by the place of liquor den at Vadi Maru Falla, and by pointing out knife, threatens them to commit murder. The third allegation is that the petitioner compels the drivers of the vehicles to transport liquor and in case of refusal, he gets excited, quarrels with them and pointing out the knife, threatens them to commit murder and thereby creates an atmosphere of fear and terror in the society and causes disturbance in that locality. The notice further proceeds on to state that such movement of the petitioner in that locality causes fear and. thereat to the safety of the lives and properties of the people and because of his such unsocial activities, other people are also likely to now and indulge in such activities and accordingly, the petitioner himself is a threat to the culture, the social order and to the society, at large. It is specifically stated that the action was taken against the petitioner under the existing ordinary laws and even then, the petitioner does not give up his illegal activities. It is also stated that in case such unsocial activities continue, then, in further, the results may be drastic and it is likely that serious offences may take place. It is alleged that the petitioner indulges in activities, which affect the public order and there are reasons to believe that the petitioner commits offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code and the victims of his such offences are afraid of complaining or giving evidence in public, because of the fear of the person and property, against the petitioner. In order to extern the petitioner-from the contiguous Districts, it is also stated in the notice that in case he is not externed from those Districts, the petitioner is 1ikely to carry on his activities through his agents or companions.

3. The petitioner examined various witnesses and also asserted that he is working in a mill and did not indulge in such activities. The papers were then submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara passed the externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, virtually on the same grounds. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, in his order, practically extracted the allegations in his notice and then sta