( 1 ) IN these petitions filed under S. 482 of the CPC, 1973, what is sought to be quashed is the order, dt. 17-12-1975 made by the Dist Magistrate, bijapur, in proceedings bearing No. MAG. SR. 185/75 initiated under Section 55 (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the act), calling upon the petitioners herein to appear before him and to explain as to why an order should not be made against them u/ss. 56 and 57 of the Act directing them not to enter the boundaries of Bijapur Dist for a period of one year. On a report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, hunagund, for initiation of proceedings under S. 55 (a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioners, the District Magistrate made the impugned order presumably under Sec. 58 of the Act, and the relevant part of that section reads :"58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under Section 54, 55 or 56.- (1) Before an order under S. 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by the officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. . . . . . "in the impugned order, apart from the said direction, this is what is stated:" Whereas a complaint has been filed in this Court by the PSI, hunagund against the above cited opponents stating that the opponents have formed a gang, that their movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property in the neighbourhood, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the opponents are engaged or are about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under chap. XII, XV or XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and that in the opinion of the PSI, hunagund the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the said opponents by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, and further that the PSI, Hunagund in his said complaint has cited a number of such instances of rude behaviour and dangerous and desperate acts of the opponents cited above. " ( 2 ) FROM the above, it is obvious the Dist Magistrate, apart from saying that the PSI had cited a number of instances of rude behaviour and dangerous and desperate acts, had not referred to the particular instances which appear to have weighed with him while making the impugned order. Sri C. M. Desai who appeared for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is on the face of it illegal since it does not satisfy the requirements of S. 58 of the Act. Elaborating the contention what he submitted was that it is incumbent on the officer concerned to inform the persons to be proceeded with under Ss. 54, 55 or 56 of the Act in writing of the general nature of the material allegations made against them and to given them a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them and that not having been done in the present case the impugned order cannot be sustained. In other words, his argument was that the allegations made against the petitioners are too general in nature to enable them to lender their explanation thereto and it is very likely that it would occasion a iailure of justice. ( 3 ) NOW the test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the petitioners is proper or not is whether that information is of such a character as to enable them to give a reasonable explanation. No doubt S. 58 of the Act says that the information to be furnished should be of a general nature. But at the same time it should not be too general or vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is levelled against them in such proceedings. No doubt S. 58 of the Act says that the information to be furnished should be of a general nature. But at the same time it should not be too general or vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is levelled against them in such proceedings. While notice may be general it must not be too general or too abstract so as to smother the materiality of the allegations. In the present case, the Dist Magistrate, except copying the words from the relevant sections of the Act, has not indicated the material allegations in the impugned order. As mentioned earlier, he appears to have made the order on the basis of the various allegations made in the report of the PSI. But there is no reference at all in the impugned order to those allegations. It is therefore difficult to say that the petitioners would be in a position to tender their explanation in as effective a manner as possible in respect of the allegations made against them in the report of the PSI. The object underlying s. 58 of the Act is to give the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding the allegations made against them, and the Dist Magistrate appears to have not realised the importance of this fact while making the impugned order. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the petitions are allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, this order does not preclude the Dist Magistrate from making a fresh order under S. 58 of the act if he is satisfied on the material on record, in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law. --- *** --- .