IMPORTANT POINT
It is for the police to decide whether action under the Bombay Police Act. 1951 should be taken or an order of preventive detention under Prevention of Anti Social Activities should be passed and not at the will of petitioner.

JUDGMENT

P.P. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.- This Special Criminal application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and also to quash the order of externment passed by respondent No. 2 dated 20-3-89 and order of confirmation by respondent No. 3 dated 7-6-1989.

2. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 30-5-1988 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the show cause notice, the following allegations have been made:

"It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violance. You terrorise the residents of the localities, with the help of accomplices, known as Capri Hotel, near Advance Talkies, Near Bhadra Tar Office, near Capri Hotel, around Municipal Market Navrangpura, Swastik: Char Rasta, areas under Karanj and Navrangpura Police Stations.

It is further stated that such activities were being committed since the month of February, 1988 and specifically it is stated that the petitioner, with the help of his accomplices, way-lay, rob and extort money from the persons at the point of Rampuri knife and under threats of violence and that he used to purchase eatable goods from the businessmen of the areas without payment and when legal dues are demanded, he used to beat the persons and threatened to kill the persons with the help of Rampuri knife and razor. There is a further averment in the notice to the effect that the witnesses to the above said incidents are not willing to come forward to depose against him public by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property. After alleging so, the show cause notice states that it is proposed to extern the petitioner for a period of two years not only from the City of Ahmedabad, but also from the continuous districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kheda, Gandhinagar and Mehsana. Alleging all these facts of the case, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the above said places. After getting the reply and also examining the witnesses produced by the petitioner, the Deputy Police Commissioner; who is the externing authority in this case, passed an order of externment on 20-3-1989, externing the petitioner for a period of two years from Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Mehsana, Kheda: and Gandhinagar Districts.

3. In the externment order, the externing authority has specifically stated that he has considered all the evidence produced before him and that he was satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous and desperate person and committed the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The externing authority has further stated that the petitioner performed all such activities near Capri Hotel, near Advance Talkies, near Bhadra Office, near Municipal Market, near Swastik Char Rasta. The externing authority has further stated that such type of activities were done by the externee from February 1988 in the areas mentioned in the show cause notice. There is a specific finding by the externing authority to the effect that the witnesses are not ready and willing to depose against the petitioner due to risk of their life and property.

4. Against the order of externment dated 20th March, 1989, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act to the Government of Gujarat. The order of the externing authority was confirmed by the Government, after properly applying its mind and examining the records produced before it. As against these orders, the petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application.

5. Mr. E.E. Saiyed, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has taken a number of grounds in order to convince us that the order of externment cannot be sustained.

6. The first contention raised by "Mr. Saiyed is that the person who has recorded the statement is not authorised to record the statement. It is clear from the case