R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order of externment passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police Baroda City and confirmed in appeal by the State Government. By the said exterment order the petitioner was directed to be externed for a period of one year from the area of jurisdiction of Baroda City Police Commissioner and areas of Baroda Rural and contiguous Districts of Kheda Punchmahals and Bharuch. The allegations in the show cause notice are as under: You are the dangerous fanatic person a head-strong person committing anti-social activities. Allegations against you are that you are committing acts wherein duress and violence is involved in Nava Yard area coming within the limits of Sayaji Ganj Police Station since October 1984 till date and by your this movement you are dangerous and injurious to the lives and properties of the people of Nava Yard area. 177 (1) You are selling liquor in the area of Nava Yard yourself and engaging accomplices and servants and violate Prohibition Acts and with a view to carry on the business of liquor smoothly and without any prohibition you quarrel with the peaceful citizens of this area for one reason or the other and thereby beat them and by showing knife threat of killing them. By doing so you create the atmosphere of fear and oppression in the society and thereby create disorder. (2) You play mischief with the innocent women staying in Nava Yard area and you beat the innocent citizens asking him not to do so by exciting upon them and by showing knife to them and threat them that if they would lodge complaint with police they would be killed. (3) You play gambling near the buildings of the citizen of Nava Yard area and sell the liquor and if you are asked not to do so you get excited and threat of killing by showing knife. (4) You purchase materials from the merchants and do not pay its money and if the merchant demands the said outstanding amount you abuse and threat by saying whethere you want to to do the business here or not and thus you create disorder in the society by spreading the atmosphere of fear and oppression in the society. (4) You purchase materials from the merchants and do not pay its money and if the merchant demands the said outstanding amount you abuse and threat by saying whethere you want to to do the business here or not and thus you create disorder in the society by spreading the atmosphere of fear and oppression in the society. (5) You take loan amount from the people and do not repay the said money to them and on demanding the said amount from you you get excited and say by showing knife that what money do you want if you want to save your life you go away by saying so you threat them. (6) You demand for vehicle from the public and get vehicles forcibly and you show knife to the people who refuse to give vehicle and thereby give threat to kill them. By doing so you create disorder in the society by creating atmosphere of fear and oppression. (7) There is a reasonable cause to believe that you are committing offences punishable under Chapter 16-17 of the Indian Penal Code. The victimised witnesses being afraid of their lives and properties are not willing to give their testimony in public against you. ( 2 ) THE show cause notice states that since the criminal activities of the petitioner were continuing and the people were terrorised there appear to be a definite possibility of the petitioner committing such offences in future. The petitioner was alleged to be a nuisance and oppressive to the Society and the petitioner is alleged to have been spreading the atmosphere of fear and oppression amongst the citizens. Therefore it was proposed to extern the petitioner from the District of Baroda and other contiguous Districts for a period of two years. The petitioner was alleged to be a nuisance and oppressive to the Society and the petitioner is alleged to have been spreading the atmosphere of fear and oppression amongst the citizens. Therefore it was proposed to extern the petitioner from the District of Baroda and other contiguous Districts for a period of two years. After giving an opportunity to render his explanation and lead evidence the externing authority came to the conclusion that the allegations in the show cause notice were supported by evidence and after considering the explanation and the affidavit produced by the petitioner in his defence the externing authority was satisfied that the petitioner is a very dangerous and head strong person and indulging in the acts of violence and force punishable under Chapter 16 of the I. P. C. The externing authority was also satisfied that the witnesses were not prepared to come for ward to give evidence in public due to the fear and danger to their lives and properties and therefore the order for externment for a period of the year from Baroda City and other contiguous Districts was passed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions. 1781 That the show cause notice is vague and general and does not give particulars and therefore the petitioner had no opportunity to defend and therefore the order of externment is bad. 2 That the show cause notice alleges and attributes offensive activities to the petitioner in Nava Yard area and there is no allegation that the petitioner is involved in any criminal activities in the area of Baroda City or its contiguous Districts and therefore the order of externment is bad not only for Baroda City but also in respect of Baroda District and other contiguous Districts. 3 There is undue and unreasonable delay in passing the order of externment and that would indicate that the petitioner is really not a dangerous person or menace to the society. If the externing authority was satisfied about the petitioner being a danger and menace to the Society the action for externment would not have been delayed. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 59 (1) the externing authority is required to 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 that. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 59 (1) the externing authority is required to 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 that. It is to be noted that in the instant case especially when the allegation is that the witnesses were not willing or coming forward to give evidence due to fear by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their lives and properties the allegations have necessarily to be conveyed by the general nature of material allegations. If details are given the identity of the persons giving the evidence would become known to the proposed externee which would jeopardise the person and property of such informant. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kathi Harsur Rukhad v. State of Gujarat 1986 GLH 158 . The Division Bench has held that the proposed externee was to be given reasonable opportunity to tender the explanation and for that purpose all material allegations of general nature have to be pointed out. If the allegations in the show cause notice are totally vague and do not indicate during which period and in which areas the proposed externee is alleged to have indulged in the nefatious activities the notice will be vague and would result in denial of reasonable opportunity and the externment order based on such a notice would be bad. ( 6 ) IN the present case the show cause notice is not vague in respect of the period as well as the area. The show cause notice clearly alleges only one area i. e. Nava Yard area within the limits of Sayajiganj Police Station of Baroda. The period is also specified namely: since October 1984 till the date of show cause notice i. e. 23-1-1985. Thus on both the counts the notice cannot be said to be vague and therefore this contention must fail. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the criminal activity attributed to the petitioner is confined to Nava Yard area only and therefore the order of externment from Baroda District and its contiguous Districts is wholly unjustified. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the criminal activity attributed to the petitioner is confined to Nava Yard area only and therefore the order of externment from Baroda District and its contiguous Districts is wholly unjustified. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act empowers the externing authority to extern the person not only from the area from which the person is operating but to extern him outside the area of his jurisdiction and also of the District and contiguous Districts. It is not necessary that his nefarious activities should be at these places or Districts. The reason for externing a person from a particular locality is to disable and prevent such a person from carrying on his nefarious activities and 179 for that purpose he is required to be externed to such a distance so as to effectively prevent him from indulging in such activities. The externing authority has observed that if the petitioner is not externed from the nearby Districts there is a clear possibility that he may carry on such activities from the nearby Districts through his accomplices and agents. Such power to extern from such area and other contiguous area is clearly conferred by Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act and therefore this contention has no merit. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is gross delay in passing the externment order thereby showing that there was no genuine satisfaction about the dangerous character of the petitioner. In para 8 of the petition the petitioner has alleged that the show cause notice was issued way back in the year 1982 and the authority did not take any action for a considerable lapse of time of more than four years. It thus appears that the petitioner alleges delay of four years in passing the externment order on the ground that the notice was issued sometime in the year 1982. As seen earlier the show cause notice is dated 23-1-1985. The affidavit in reply shows that the petitioner was issued an externment notice in the year 1982 and ultimately the order of externment was passed against the petitioner. After the period of that externment was over it appears that the offensive activities of the petitioner again started and therefore the present show cause notice was issued on 23-1-1985 alleging prejudicial activities from October 1984. After the period of that externment was over it appears that the offensive activities of the petitioner again started and therefore the present show cause notice was issued on 23-1-1985 alleging prejudicial activities from October 1984. The order has been passed on 25-10-1985. Thus the allegation of delay of four years is clearly misconceived. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the period of nine months between the present show cause notice and the impugned externment order is also unreasonably a long period. There is no allegation about such delay in the petition and therefore there is no reply to that. However on going through the record of the externing authority it appears that during this period of 9 months the petitioner had asked for and obtained about 29 adjournments. Thus there is no delay on the part of the externing authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the petitioner went on asking for the adjournments the externing authority was not justified in granting such adjournments and allowing the proceedings to be delayed. This argument has no merit and is required to be summarily rejected. The authority has given full and reasonable opportunity and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of his own actions or wrongs. Therefore this contention regarding delay in passing the externment order has also no merit. ( 10 ) THESE were the only contentions raised and all of them fail. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Rule discharged .