M. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the notice issued by the District magistrate, Bangalore and served on him under S. 58 r/w S. 55 of the Karnataka police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), to give his explanation to the allegations made against him. On the report made by the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Dt. , the District magistrate has proceeded to issue the impugned notice informing about the allegations made against the petitioner enclosing a statement of substance of allegations made against him. The allegations made in the enclosed statement are as follows :"1) That you being the leader of your group is having deep seated enmity with the other group of people of your village lead by Sri S. Ramaswamy. 2) As a sequel to this there were clashes between you both on 18 7 1980, 20-9 80 and 22-2-1981 at Bagalur. 3) Eleven cases for offences such as unlawful assembly, rioting, house trespassing, mischief, assault on publie servant were registered at Devanahalli police Station against both the members of the parties and the case is pending disposal before the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Doddaballapur Sub-Division. 4) Tension is prevailing and it is mounting on account of your enmity in the village. 5) That you are entertaining unlawful designs to cause danger to the lives and properties of your opponents". ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner contended that not only the allegations as mentioned above, enclosed with the notice, are vague but the allegations do not attract any of the clauses mentioned in S. 55 of the Act and, therefore, the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate deserved to be quashed. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner contended that not only the allegations as mentioned above, enclosed with the notice, are vague but the allegations do not attract any of the clauses mentioned in S. 55 of the Act and, therefore, the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate deserved to be quashed. ( 3 ) WHILE S. 55 of the Act provides that whenever it shall appear in the City of bangalore and other areas for which a commissioner has been appointed under s. 7, to the Commissioner, and in other, area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette extend the provision of this section, to the district Magistrate, or Sub Divisional magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,- (A) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension of their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or © that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct him self as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself. S. 58 of the Act, the relevant portion thereof for our purpose, provides that before an order under S. 55 is passed against any person, the officer acting under the said section 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. It is nobody's case that the petitioner is an immigrant or there is any likelihood of epidemic disease from the continued residence of the petitioner. Cl. © of S. 55 is not clearly attracted in view of what is stated in the statement of allegations enclosed with the notice issued and served on the petitioner. It appears, Cl. (b) has also no application. Even if what is stated in the statement of allegations at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 showed about the petitioner having been engaged in commission of any such offence involving force or violence, there is no allegation that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. To attract Cl. (b) of S. 55 of the Act, both the engagement of the person in committing such offence involving force or violence etc. , coupled with the fear of the witnesses not coming forward to give evidence in public is necessary. Since there is no allegation that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, Cl. (b) has no application. Cl. (a) is relative to the movements or acts of persons which are causing or calculated to cause alarm or danger or harm to person or property, the allegitioni made against the petitioner do not show that either his movements are causing or are calculated to cause harm. Now, the question is whether the acts involving the force or violence used in the commission of offence, as specified in allegations at SI. Nos. 2 and 3 read together can be construed as causing danger or harm to person or property. Now, the question is whether the acts involving the force or violence used in the commission of offence, as specified in allegations at SI. Nos. 2 and 3 read together can be construed as causing danger or harm to person or property. Though the past acts may be relevant, bat it is not only on account of past acts committed by any person that he has to be removed out of the district. It is only the movements and future apprehended acts which are likely to cause harm to the person or property of others that calls for an action under S. 55 and it is then only the Commissioner or the District Magistrate shall issue notice calling upon the person to give his explanation, when it appears to him that such an action is necessary. ( 4 ) WHAT is stated in Sl. No. 5 of the statement of allegations enclosed to the notice show ed that he was entertaining some unlawful designs to cause danger to the lives and properties of his opponents. It is not the design that itself is sufficient to take such an action, but the acts with such design. No such acts have been attributed to him either in the statement of allegations served on him with the notice or in the report made by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate. ( 5 ) IN other words, the allegations were vague in nature and this Court has held in the decision of Basappa Ghaviyappa v. State of Karnataka (1), though as provided under s. 58 the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is passed should be of a general nature, but at the same time it should not be too general or too vague so as to render the persons not able to tender explanation in respect of what is alleged against him. That applies to the facts of the present case. Though the allegations are not as general as in that case, but still they are vague. ( 6 ) THE report, of course, as pointed out by the learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the State, states that if the person is not removed from the district there is likelihood of murders being committed. But the District Magistrate himself does not seem to have thought it to be so. ( 6 ) THE report, of course, as pointed out by the learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the State, states that if the person is not removed from the district there is likelihood of murders being committed. But the District Magistrate himself does not seem to have thought it to be so. The fact that he has not stated so in the statement of allegations enclosed to the notice showed there was no basis for that conclusion. It is not the report of the police that is sufficient, but it is only when it appeared to the District magistrute that such an action under S. 55 is necessary, notice should be served. When the District Magistrate himself has not thought of the likelihood of such murders, then it cannot be said that that was a ground on which the proceedings had to be initiated. It is thus clear that none of the Clauses mentioned in S. 55 of the Act are either made out from the statement of allegations served on the petitioner along with the notice, or they were really attracted. It is only when it shall appear to the district Magistrate the three situations mentioned in Cls. (a) to © of S. 55 of the act exist that he gets jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. The District Magistrate having thus not satisfied about the existence of any of the circumstances stated above, was not justified in issuing a notice to the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the result and for the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed. The notice under revision is set aside and the proceedings are quashed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the District Magistrate from issuing a fresh notice giving out the information either on the report as made to him or any other fresh material made availabe to him. --- *** --- .