P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Criminal Application is to quash the show cause notice which is Annexure A to the petition the order of externment which is Annexure B to the petition and the order in the appeal which is Annexure C to the petition. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was informed under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 by the notice dated 31-12-84 that it is proposed to extern him for a period of two years from the area of Surat City and contiguous areas of Surat Rural District of Broach and Valsad under Section 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act for a period of two years from the date of the proposed externment order. The allegations levelled against him are as follows: (1) You ale a violent and stronghead person. You with the aid of associeties commit dangerous offences such ad hurt grievous hurt trespass looting etc. (2) You commit offences involving power and violence and such offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII IPC and you are likely to commit the same. (3) You with your associates have been arrested for keeping lethal weapons such as revolver knife and hockey stick etc. (4) You keep lethal weapon as revolver for Dadagiri and you beat passers-by on suspicion that they inform the police for your anti-social activities. (5) You kidnap innocent passers-by detain and loot them. (6) You molest the passers-by women and trespass in their homes and molest them on threatening to commit violence. (7) Under pretext of dadagiri you use auto-rickshaw but do not pay for it and on demand of payment you beat. (8) Your movements and acts are such as to cause fear alarm and damage to person and property. (9) You commit offences involving force and violence punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII IPC since 1981 and you are involved in the following offences i. e. (1) Sec. 324 114 I. P. C. (2) Sec. 452 323 504 506 114 I. P. C. (3) Sec. 323 114 I. P. C. (4) 25 (c) under Arms Act. (9) You commit offences involving force and violence punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII IPC since 1981 and you are involved in the following offences i. e. (1) Sec. 324 114 I. P. C. (2) Sec. 452 323 504 506 114 I. P. C. (3) Sec. 323 114 I. P. C. (4) 25 (c) under Arms Act. (10) That you commit the aforesaid offences in the Surat City area such as Rander Tin Batti Rander Nana Bazar Char Rasta Rander Amalipura Kirtinagar Society Rander Vakharoli Road Near Ramnagar Rander Bus Stand Majuna Gali Navyug College Air India Office Zanda-Chowk Bus Stand etc. (11) You have been committing aforesaid dangerous acts and witnesses in the aforesaid offences are not coming forward to depose against you due to fear to their person and property. ( 2 ) THE show cause notice further alleges that the petitioner is sought to be extended from the area of the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner Surat City Surat Rural and Districts of Broach and Valsad because if the petitioner is not externed from the aforesaid areas he with the aid of his associates and agents will carry on his aforesaid activities and will involve in such offences to the speedy transportation available in these days. The petitioner offered his explanation and has also examined witnesses apart from producing documentary evidence. The Externing Authority who is the Deputy Police Commissioner Surat City after careful consideration of the explanation and oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous head-strong person and has been committing the offences enumerated above and is likely to commit the same in the future also. It has been observed by the externing authority that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property and as such there should be an order of externment. Therefore the extermining authority under the powers conferred under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act externed the petitioner for a period of two years from the area of the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner Surat City Surat Rural and districts of Broach and Valsad. Aggrieved by the said order of externment the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 to the Government of Gujarat. Aggrieved by the said order of externment the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 to the Government of Gujarat. The Government of Gujarat in exercise of its power under sub-section (3) of Section 60 after satisfying itself that there are reasonable grounds for making an order of externment modified the order by 988 substituting that the externment will be for a period of one year and that too from the area of Police Commissioner Surat City alone. As against these orders and the show-cause notice referred above the petitioner has now come forward with the present Special Criminal Application. ( 3 ) MR. Kapadia the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took up several contentions which we will be presently discussing and contended that the order of externment cannot be sustained. Mr. G. D. Bhatt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that all ingredients necessary to pass an order of externment are found in this case and that the order of externment has been correctly passed against the petitioner herein. We will be adverting to his submission while we consider the various contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia on behalf of the petitioner herein. The first contention raised by Mr. Kapadia is that the show-cause notice does not contain the period of the commission of the offence by the petitioner herein. It is further contended that the show-cause notice is vague and devoid of any particulars as regards the offences committed by the petitioner herein. Mr. G. D. Bhatt reading the averments in the show cause notice and also the contentions in the reply affidavit contended that the show-cause notice contains all the material allegations in respect of the offences committed by the petitioner that the copies of the F. I. Rs. of such offence were also supplied to the petitioner along with the names of the associates involved with the petitioner in the said cases ( 4 ) IN the show-cause notice there are clear averments as regards activities indulged in by the petitioner herein and also there is a specific averment that the petitioner commits offences involving force and violence punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In allegation No. 9 of the show cause notice it has also been specifically averred that the petitioner is involved in an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 114 I. P. C. in an offence punishable under Sections 452 323 504 506 (2) 114 I. P. C. in an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 114 I. P. C. and in an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It has also been made clear in the show-cause notice that offences enumerated as allegations 1 to 9 are being perpetrated since 981. The above said particulars in the show cause notice not only describe the dangerous activities indulged in by the petitioner herein but also state that those activities are being committed since 1981. ( 5 ) MR. Kapadia next contended that there is delay in passing the order of externment. The show cause notice is dated 31-12-1984 and is received by the petitioner on 2-1-1985. The externment order was passed on 2-1-1986. In paragraph 6 of the reply the respondents have given clear and cogent explanation for the delay in passing the externment order. We do not think than it is necessary to repeat the detailed averments regarding the adjournments granted mostly on the request of the petitioner. Mr. Kapadia pointed out that after hearing the oral arguments on 5 the externing authority has taken nearly 58 days for passing the impugned order on 2-1-1986. This the respondents have explained by stating that the externing authority who orgiginally heard the matter had gone out of Surat for training to Hyderabad that the case was transferred to the present externing authority who passed the order on 2-1-1986 that the present externing authority after fully perusing the records and proceedings passed the order of externment on 2-1-1986. Considering the volume of evidence and the 989 number of adjournments the case has to undergo we do not think that the delay between the arguments and the passing of the externment order can be considered as unduly prolonged. Thus we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Kapadia that the externment order cannot be sustained due to the long delay. ( 6 ) ANOTHER novel argument put forth by Mr. Thus we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Kapadia that the externment order cannot be sustained due to the long delay. ( 6 ) ANOTHER novel argument put forth by Mr. Kapadia is that the externing authority should not have granted such long and continuous adjournments even on the request of the proposed externee and such delay in between the show cause notice and passing of the externment order whatever be the cause is fatal to the prosecution case. Such an argument has only to be started to be rejected. ( 7 ) MR. Kapadia then contended that a case which is compromised a case which is pending and case wherein acquittal has been made were taken into consideration for passing the externment order and as such it has to be construed that the externing authority passed order mechanically without applying his mind. It is further contended by Mr. Kapadia that the allegation as if witnesses are not coming forward to depose due to fear to their person and property is vague and there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the same. MI. G. D. Bhatt the learned counsel appearing for the respondents after reading paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-reply contended that the offences alleged are sufficient to pass the order of externment and that mere pendency of a case or compromise or acquittal cannot in any way affect the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the externing authority. It has been specifically averred in the show-cause notice that the petitioner committing the offences enumerated in the show cause notice and those offences are dangerous acts and as such the witnesses are not coming forward to depose. It is further alleged in the show-cause notice that the witnesses are not coming forward due to fear to their person and property. Thus the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the allegations are vague and that irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration to pass the externment order are all without substance and it cannot be said that the allegations made in the show-cause notice and the externment order in any way vitiate the proceedings. ( 8 ) MR. Thus the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the allegations are vague and that irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration to pass the externment order are all without substance and it cannot be said that the allegations made in the show-cause notice and the externment order in any way vitiate the proceedings. ( 8 ) MR. Kapadia the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly put forth the contention to the effect that there is absolutely nc finding by the externing authority that the petitioners presence in the locality from which he has been externed is a menace to society that he has to be externed for that purpose. According to the learned counsel the individual acts and the difficulty that the complainants experience due to such acts cannot be a ground for externing individual thereby depriving his liberty unless the act of the individual is so dangerous and it is menace to the society. In this connection we can usefully refer to Section 50 of the Bombay Police Act wherein it is stated that the externment order can be passed when the movements or acts of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property or 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 Chapters XII XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code and if in the opinion of the officer concerned the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. As far as the present case is concerned there is enough averment in the show cause notice that the petitioner 990 is committing offences involving force a nd violence and also offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII since 1981 in the Surat City area such as Rander Tin Batti Rander Nana Bazar Char Rasta Rander Amalipura Kirtinagar Society Rander Vakharoli Road Near Ramnagar Rander Bus Stand Majuna Gali Navyug College Air India Office Zanda-Chowk Bus Stand etc. and that the witnesses in the aforesaid offences are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. and that the witnesses in the aforesaid offences are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. The reading of the show cause notice leaves no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the activity of the petitioner is a menace to the society and there is a specific averment to the effect that the petitioner is committing dangerous acts and the witnesses in the aforesaid offences are not coming forward to depose against him due to fear to their person and property. Mr. Kapadia the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that there is absolutely no application of mind by the externing authority in passing the externment order and that has been done in a mechanical fashion. It is the case of the petitioner that the show-cause notice gives the period of offence only in respect of the four instances mentioned in clause (9) of the show cause notice and not for the other allegations mentioned therein. We are afraid that we cannot appreciate this argument. The show cause notice is clear and specific with regard to the allegations and the averment that such offences are being perpetrated by the petitioner since 1981 clearly refers to all these allegations and cannot be confined only to the particulars of offences mentioned in clause (9) of the show cause notice. Mr. Kapadia then contended that his client the petitioner herein was out of India during the period 1982 and as such the allegations as regards the commission of offence prior to that period get themselves snapped. Hence according to Mr. Kapadia the only apprehension on the part of the externing authority is with regard to the offences mentioned in clause (9) of the show cause notice and that the same will be continued by the petitioner herein. It is further contended by Mr. Kapadia that the offences mentioned in clause (9) of the show cause notice pertain to cases wherein there was either acquittal or pendency or compromise. Hence according to the learned counsel the externing authority has wrongly taken these offences into consideration and that has vitiated the externment orders. In the first place it is not correct to state that the period mentioned refers only to the offences mentioned in clause (9 ). Hence according to the learned counsel the externing authority has wrongly taken these offences into consideration and that has vitiated the externment orders. In the first place it is not correct to state that the period mentioned refers only to the offences mentioned in clause (9 ). Secondly the averment that the petitioner was out of India during 1982-83 is not substantiated and even assuming that for some period the petitioner was out of India that cannot in any way affect the averments contained in the show cause notice. Further the allegation as a whole apart from affirming the definite suspicion regarding the future dangerous activities of the petitioner clearly spells out the definite prognosis on the part of the petitioner to indulge in such menacing activities which will be dangerous to the public both in relation to their person and property. Thus we are able to see enough materials both documentary and oral for the externing authority to form the subjective satisfaction regarding the menacing activity of the petitioner who is described as a strongheaded and dangerous person. Such a subjective satisfaction arrived at by the externing authority on proper materials placed before it cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) MR. Kapadia after reading the decision in State of Gujarat v. Mehbubkhan reported in AIR 1968 SC 1468 submits that the absence of averment in 991 the show cause notice to the effect that the petitioner is a menace to the society is fatal to the externment order. The learned counsel also reads the allegations contained in the show cause notice referred in the abovesaid decision and also the observations of the externing authority in that case. In that case the show cause notice states that the externee therein was a dangerous and desperate person and indulged in acts involving force and violence and that he terrorises the residents of the localities mentioned therein. In that case the externing authority has also observed that the respondent is a desperate and dangerous man and is engaged in the commission of acts involving force or violence. Mr. Kapadia then cited the decision in Dana Nathu v. Sub-Div. Mag. In that case the externing authority has also observed that the respondent is a desperate and dangerous man and is engaged in the commission of acts involving force or violence. Mr. Kapadia then cited the decision in Dana Nathu v. Sub-Div. Mag. Rajkot reported ( 1973) XIV GLR 209 wherein a Bench of our High Court has observed:"therefore the nature of the offences would not be the sole criterion and the authority would have to go into the other pertinent question whether the offending activity of the individual concerned has reached that degree of harm to the society that the interest of the society or even of that particular locality required that this individual who had become a public menace should be externed from the locality. If the order is not in accordance with that perspective the order is clearly unconstitutional ultra vires order and could be surely quashed on that very ground even if the vires of the section is upheld". In the present case also the show cause notice specifically states that the petitioner is committing the offences mentioned in the show cause notice which are dangerous acts and the witnesses in the aforesaid offences are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. In the externment order it has been specifically mentioned that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. As correctly pointed out by Mr. G. D. Bhatt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor it is not necessary to repeat the very same words and sentences mentioned in the Supreme Court decision to spell out that the externee is a menace to the society. Mr. Kapadia also contended that there is no allegation in the show cause notice nor finding to that effect in the externment order that the petitioner is menace to the public and that if at all there is any allegation it is in respect of specific instance wherein the complainants therein were only involved. This argument of Mr. Kapadia is countered by Mr. This argument of Mr. Kapadia is countered by Mr. G. D. Bhatt by stating that the show cause notice specifically alleges various instances which spell out that the petitioner is a menace to the public and there is a specific allegation to the effect that the petitioner is a violent and strong-headed person and commits dangerous offences such as hurt grievous hurt trespass looting etc. We have carefully gone through the averment in the show-cause notice and the order passed by the externing authority. The reading of these documents amply establishes that the petitioner is a dangerous and desperate person and is a nuisance and menace to the society in and around the place alleged by the externing authority. It is not necessary that the very same words and sentences used by the Supreme Court have to be used by every externing authority in order to sustain the order of externment. If it can be read from the averments in the show cause notice and the externment order that the petitioner is a menace to the public that itself is enough for sustaining the order of externment provided such a subjective satisfaction is 992 arrived at by the externing authority on proper materials on record. Mr. Kapadia also cited the decision in Prem Chand v. Union of India reported in AIR 1981 SC 613 wherein the Supreme Court has deprecated the stock witnesses put forth for the vague allegations against the externee concerned and also deprecated secret hearing of such witnesses. We do not think that the facts of the said case have any relevance to the case on hand. The externing authority in this case has specifically made mention in the show cause notice to various allegations and has examined number of witnesses produced by the externee. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner has been externed by letting in stock witnesses or on vague allegations. ( 10 ) MR. Kapadia also pressed into service the decision in Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 1980 Cri. L. J. 1238 for the proposition that where a person seeks to bring about compromise of dispute between him and another person or between some third persons it could not be said that his act would cause alarm danger or harm to person or property within the meaning of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. L. J. 1238 for the proposition that where a person seeks to bring about compromise of dispute between him and another person or between some third persons it could not be said that his act would cause alarm danger or harm to person or property within the meaning of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. Inasmuch as one of the offences alleged in the show cause notice ended in a compromise Mr. Kapadia states that the externing authority has mechanically applied its mind without appreciating all these facts and has passed the order of externment. As we observed already the allegations in the show cause notice from Clauses (1) to (9) are cumulatively taken into account and that those activities are said to have been committed since 1981. Thus on the facts of the present case we do not think that the decision reported in Salubhai v. State of Gujarat 1980 Cri. LJ. 1238 can have any application. Thus considering the whole facts of this case we are of the view that order of externment has been passed after proper application of the mind and in conformity with the provisions of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the externing authority in this case is on proper materials and there is absolutely no vitiating circumstances to set aside the order of externment. In these circumstances we do not find any merits in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein and accordingly this Special Criminal Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief vacated. No costs. Rule discharged .