JUDGMENT - R.L. AGGARWAL, J.:---In the present criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of externment dated 11th December, 1974 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Greater Bombay, under section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The few facts giving rise to the passing of the impugned order are as follows : The petitioner came from Madras State at the tender age of about 14 or 15 years and since then he has been permanently residing in Dhobi Talao areas, Bombay. After coming to Bombay, the petitioner did odd jobs off and on and worked as hotel boy in Kayani and Bastani Restaurants situated at Dhobi Talao. For the last over 10 years, the petitioner has been residing on the 2nd floor of Chokshi Building 4th Marine Street, Dhobi Talao, Bombay. In February 1974, he was employed be one Ramchandra Bandu Mane carrying on business of foot-wear manufacturer at Byculla, Bombay. Prior thereto, he had worked in David Printing Press also situated at Dhobi Talao area. According to the petitioner, he was taking keen interest in social and religious activities of the residents of Dhobi Talao area by organising festivals, especially Ganpati. On Timothy DSouza who himself was once externed and against whom an order of detention under MISA was issued for conducting Matka betting and liquor manufacturing activities in Dhobi Talao area, inspired and instigated externment proceedings against the petitioner. DSouza was on friendly terms with the Azad Maidan Police Station and Crime Branch, C.I.D. The petitioner gave several written complaints to the higher authorities against DSouza and his Police Officer friends. According to the petitioner, this created bad feelings and ill-will with the officers of Azad Maidan Police Station, and in these circumstances, a show cause notice dated 29th July, 1974 under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was served upon the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, A Division Bombay. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were that since July 1973 in the localities known as Trinity Street, M.K. Road, Hamalwadi, Marine Lines, and the areas adjoining thereto in Bombay, the acts and movements of the petitioner were causing and were calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to the residents and shop-keepers of the said localities. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were that since July 1973 in the localities known as Trinity Street, M.K. Road, Hamalwadi, Marine Lines, and the areas adjoining thereto in Bombay, the acts and movements of the petitioner were causing and were calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to the residents and shop-keepers of the said localities. The following two instances are quoted :--- "(i) that you use criminal force towards women-folk found lonely on their way for shopping or returning to their residences in the said localities and areas with the intention of outraging their modesty which are the offences punishable under Chapter XVI of Indian Penal Code. (ii) that you commit robberies by extorting money from the residents and shop-keepers of the aforesaid localities and areas, on assault, threats of assault and/or at the point of knife which are offences punishable under XVII of Indian Penal Code." In reply, the petitioner submitted his written-statement contending therein that the officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station were collaborating and colluding with the said D Souza in bring the petitioner into trouble from time to time solely because he was writing against them to the higher authorities. The petitioner also submitted copies of the complaints made to the higher authorities and the correspondence carried on by him with the authorities. In particular, he referred to a petition dated 19th October, 1968 complaining against S.I. Bhingarde and the said D Souza and his complaint dated 26th June, 1969 against S.G.S.I. Kadam and S.G.S.I. Achrekar and another complaint dated 7th August, 1970 against S.I. Shivale. He also pointed out that all non-cognizable complaints were recorded against him. On 5th November, 1970, he wrote a letter to the Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station, complaining against S.I. Dhariya that although the petitioner had informed S.I. Dhariya about the high handedness of DSouza, the former had taken no action and that S.I. Dhariya was his staunch enemy. The petitioner also pointed out that he had filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, against S.I. Dhariya and S.I. Arote under sections 324, 348 read with section 34 or 114 I.P.C. and/or under section 147(b), (c), (d) (e) of the Bombay Police Act, and ultimately S.I. Dhariya was convicted, but the Appellate Court set aside his conviction. He also pointed out that he was falsely implicated on a serious charge of house-breaking, but he was honourable acquitted by the Court. The petitioner also emphasized that he had been acquitted in various cases and alleged that he was falsely involved in those cases at the instance of various officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was mala fide and was issued on false, frivolous, vexations and baseless reports engineered by his enemies, particularly the henchmen of D Souza, in collusion and collaboration with certain designing former officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station, who bore ill-will and grudge against him. He submitted that the allegations related to the period from July 1973 and that although he had been residing in Dhobi Talao area for the last about 15 years, he was not marked for externment action until recently when the police felt frustrated because they tried as much as they could to get him involved in false and frivolous prosecutions, but he was honourably acquitted. The petitioner also led evidence of 7 respectable witnesses from the locality who had deposed regarding the petitioners good conduct and character, and that since February 1974 he was working with Ramchandra Bandu Mane and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against him should be dropped and the notice discharged. Ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed and the petitioner was directed to remove himself for a period of two years outside the limits of Greater Bombay and Thana District. The petitioner filed an appeal under section 80 of the Bombay Police Act. By an order (dated 29th May, 1976), the Appellate Authority modified the impugned order to the effect that the period for which the said order shall remain in force shall be reduced to that which the petitioner had already undergone. Thus, the period of externment of two years was reduced to the period which had already been undergone by the petitioner. Thus, the period of externment of two years was reduced to the period which had already been undergone by the petitioner. On behalf of the State, Shri R.D. Tyagi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Greater Bombay, has filed the return and has denied that the petitioner is permanently employed and contended that his main source of living is collection of money from the shopkeepers and residents of Dhobi Talao area on the pretext that he is a dada of the localities and gives protection to them, and that the petitioner indulges in liquor activities and other anti-social activities. Regarding the seven witnesses examined by the petitioner to show that he is a man of good character, it is stated " that these witnesses had no knowledge about the activities of the petitioner and they were trying to create an impression by harping on the fact that he is a man of good character." The witnesses were unaware and ignorant about the illegal activities of the petitioner. Although according to them the petitioner was known to them for a long time, it was submitted that the witnesses were interested and got-up witnesses and they merely obliged the petitioner either because of some relationship or because they were afraid of the petitioner. As regards several written complaints made by the petitioner to the higher authorities in connection with several Sub-Inspectors and Senior Grade Sub-Inspectors, it is stated that the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be false and baseless and that those allegations were made by the petitioner in order to cover up his own nefarious activities and to create a fear in the mind of the police in order to deter them from taking any action against him for his anti-social activities. In connection with the allegations made against the Police officers, it is stated that they had been transferred from the Azad Maidan Police Station long back and, therefore, there was no reason for their successor to institute externment proceedings for the allegations made by the petitioner against the Police Officers who were already transferred. It is averred that the externment proceedings are initiated on the evidence of independent witnesses and other relevant material on record. It is denied that the proceedings had been taken at the instance of the said D Souza or because of the allegations made by the petitioner against the police. It is averred that the externment proceedings are initiated on the evidence of independent witnesses and other relevant material on record. It is denied that the proceedings had been taken at the instance of the said D Souza or because of the allegations made by the petitioner against the police. In para 6 of the return, it is stated that the statements of 16 persons who had been victimised by the petitioner were recorded and they expressed fear that in case they openly deposed against the petitioner, they would be assaulted. It is further said that since the year 1970 the petitioner had committed several acts of violence and that on 30th January, 1970 the petitioner had assaulted one Humayun Abdul Kadar with a knife, but the said case came to be compounded as the complainant was afraid to depose against the petitioner. In the third week of July 1970, several complaints were received against the petitioner and hence he was arrested under section 151 Cri.P.C. and proceedings under section 107 Cri.P.C. were held against him, in which he was warned to maintain peace and was discharged. The petitioner was arrested under section 68(a), of Bombay Act 25 of 1949, but the petitioner was acquitted as the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 324 read with section 114 I.P.C., in which he and his associates assaulted the complainant with iron bars, but that case was compounded with the permission of the Court by the complainant because the complainant was afraid to depose against the petitioner and his associates. During the patrolling by the officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station, the petitioner was found imparting threats to the shop-keepers and creating violence in the locality on 2nd August, 1973 and hence he was arrested under section 151 Cri.P.C. Mr. Hattangadi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously urged that the impugned order was passed mala fide because the Police Officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station were against the petitioner who is a social worker. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the written-statement of the petitioner, giving the details of the written complaints filed by him against several officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the written-statement of the petitioner, giving the details of the written complaints filed by him against several officers of the Azad Maidan Police Station. It was submitted that the said D Souza and the Police Officers named in the written-statement were in league and they had a design to any how extern the petitioner. We have carefully considered the allegations contained in the written-statement but we are unable to persuade ourselves to take the view that the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in externing the petitioner was actuated by malice or on account of any rivalry between the said D Souza and the Police Officers alleged to be friendly with him on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. We are left with an impression that the petitioner was very active and vigilant in making written complaints against certain officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector and Senior Grade Sub-Inspector. Those complaints were duly considered by the higher authorities and some officers have been transferred from the Azad Maidan Police Station as admitted by the deponent Shri R.D. Tyagi. The so-called rivalry was between the petitioner and the said DSouza and some Police Officers friendly towards him, but those Police Officers had been transferred and the impugned order was passed subsequently. The mala fides attributed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri A.K. Ankola who passed the impugned order. Now, merely because the impugned order is passed, that cannot be simply related to the complaints made by the petitioner to the higher authorities against certain Sub-Inspectors. The power to pass an externment order is vested in a very high officer who is expected to exercise it with caution and impartiality. Considering the various complaints and representation made by the petitioner, we cannot persuade ourselves to think that the authority vested with the power of externment in the present case became a party to the alleged mechanism of removing the petitioner outside the limits of Bombay and Thana. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the material disclosed before us, it seems to us that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has acted on the basis of the material and evidence before him and not in bad faith as alleged on behalf of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the material disclosed before us, it seems to us that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has acted on the basis of the material and evidence before him and not in bad faith as alleged on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that the Court cannot examine afresh the material or examine it is an objective way when the Legislature had provided for the subjective satisfaction of the authorities who have been entrusted with the duty of enforcing the provisions of the Act, namely, the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in this case. We cannot examine the material and evidence to satisfy ourselves whether the impugned order is correct or not. The challenge to the legality of the impugned order on the ground of mala fides is without substance. The allegations regarding mala fides are to be strictly proved. We are satisfied that a case of mala fides has not been made out by the petitioner. This ground, therefore, must fail. The second ground of attack was that the show cause notice was vague and did not give sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to offer his explanation. This argument is without any substance. The show cause notice clearly refers to the two grounds which have been quoted above. The grounds give sufficient and adequate particulars about the activities of the petitioner for which he was sought to be externed. The particulars furnished are not vague but specific. Moreover, there was no allegation in the written-statement that for want of particulars the petitioner was incapable of giving an explanation. Having regard to the detailed written-statement filed by the petitioner, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that he was handicapped in giving his reply to the show cause notice on account of vagueness. It is clear that the petitioner was told about the material allegations against him and he had an opportunity of meeting them. He has availed of that opportunity, he had opposed the proposed action against him and he had led evidence of seven witnesses as to his character. If the petitioner was genuinely handicapped in meeting the allegations, he would have at once knocked at the door of the authorities if regard could be had to the impressive dossiers submitted by him from time to time as referred to in his written-statement. If the petitioner was genuinely handicapped in meeting the allegations, he would have at once knocked at the door of the authorities if regard could be had to the impressive dossiers submitted by him from time to time as referred to in his written-statement. In these circumstances, we feel that this ground of attack is without any real merit. Even apart from the fact that the petitioner did not ask for particulars, we are of the opinion that a plain reading of the allegations shows that they are specific and give the necessary particulars to understand the nature of the charges. The third ground of attack was that the evidence of the petitioners witnesses has not been considered by the externing authorities. There is no merit in this submission. The impugned order specifically states that the evidence given by the witnesses and adduced by the petitioner has been considered along with his detailed explanation. Furthermore, in the return, it is affirmed that the evidence of the petitioners witnesses was considered and it is shown how they were interested in the petitioner and were obliging him either on account of some relationship or out of fear they gave evidence of good character in favour of the petitioner. The fourth ground of attack was that there is no substance in the allegation that the witnesses were not coming in Court to give evidence. In support of this, Mr. Hattangadi pointed out that there were certain prosecutions against the petitioner in which the witnesses had given evidence against him and he had also filed a private complaint against S.I. Dhariya and, therefore, there is no truth in the allegation that the witnesses were not willing to give evidence against the petitioner on account of fear. Although there is some force in Mr. Hattangadis submission that in the past witnesses had given evidence against the petitioner, it is not unlikely as stated on behalf of the respondent that witnesses from the locality were afraid of the petitioner to give evidence regarding the activities of the petitioner leading to his externment. As many as 16 witnesses had spoken about the activities of the petitioner. There is, therefore, no force in this submission. Mr. Hattangadi also urged that the appellate order is not a speaking order in the sense that no reasons are given. This submission is also liable to be rejected. As many as 16 witnesses had spoken about the activities of the petitioner. There is, therefore, no force in this submission. Mr. Hattangadi also urged that the appellate order is not a speaking order in the sense that no reasons are given. This submission is also liable to be rejected. In our opinion, the appellate order does not suffer from this vice, inasmuch as all that is done is that the period of externment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. In the result, the application fails. The rule is discharged. -----