( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed against him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara in Externment Case No. 12 of 2002. By the impugned order dated 14. 08. 2002, at Annexure e in the compilation, the petitioner is externed from Vadodara City and District for a period of one year. The appeal preferred against the said order is also dismissed by the State Government vide the order dated 23. 10. 2002, produced at Exhibit h in the compilation. The aforesaid orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The said show cause notice is produced at Annexure a, page 13. Certain grounds are mentioned in the show cause notice, indicating the activities of the petitioner. There is also a reference about two criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner.

( 3 ) SO far as the allegations are concerned, it is stated in the show cause notice at serial Nos. 1 to 9 that the petitioner is harassing the citizens in the area and that the citizens of the Town have also stated before the authority that the petitioner is a very head-strong person and because of fear, nobody is able to give their names. Looking to the aforesaid allegations, it is clear that no particulars are given about the date of any incident or area, in which the petitioner has acted in such high-handed manner. In a very routine and casual manner, allegations are made against the petitioner. Now, it is required to be appreciated that the show cause notice is issued to the petitioner for giving appropriate reply. Looking to these grounds, it is clear that it is impossible to give any effective reply.

( 4 ) IN this connection, reference is required to be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajput Ranjitsing Jatubha v. Vinay Vyas, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palanpur and Others, 1986 (1) GLR 478. In the said judgment, this Court has observed as under :-". . . . . . . . . A mere look at the allegations shows that they suffer from the vice of vagueness viz. (i) no period is mentioned during which the alleged nefarious activities have been carried on by the petitioner and (ii) no area or location is shown where such activities are carried on. These infirmities must be treated to be fatal infirmities. It must, therefore, be held that the petitioner got no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed externment on the allegations contained in the aforesaid show cause notice. . . . . . . . . . . "

( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that no particulars are given in the show cause notice in any manner, the notice is absolutely vague and on that very ground, the order is externment is required to be set aside. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, relied upon the decision in Dafer Rahman Zarar v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1999 (1) G. L. H. 425. This Court has observed as under in paragraphs 4 and 5 :-". . . . . . . . . 4. Perusal of the show-cause notice, Annexure "a" shows that except three cases, two under IPC and one under Prohibition Act, all allegations are general in nature and vague in character. The typed copy of translation of show-cause notice shows that it runs into four pages but no where in the notice, the period and the area of operation of the petitioner has been disclosed. The effect of such non-disclosure in the show-cause notice was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Rajput Ranjitsing Jatuba v. Vinay Vyas, 1986 (1) GLR 478. The Division Bench observed that a mere look at the allegations show that they suffer from the vice of vagueness, viz. , (i) no period is mentioned during which the alleged nefarious activities have been carried on by the petitioner and (ii) no area or location is shown where such activities are carried on. These infirmities