JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane on 3rd of October, 1985 under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, as well as the order passed in appeal by the State Government on 24th of January, 1986 on various grounds. 2. It is contended by Miss Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order is based on old and stale instances on the basis of which no order of externment could have been issued under the Bombay Police Act. She has also contended that the instance in which the petitioner was acquitted or the chapter cases which came to be dropped, could not have been taken into consideration for passing the externment order. Only one case is pending against the petitioner in Thane Court which is also of the year 1984. On the basis after a lapse of about one year no externment proceedings could have been taken against the externee. She also contended that the petitioner is an active social worker of the Janata Party. Since he was to contest the Municipal Corporation Elections at the instance of the persons belonging to the party in power, the present proceedings came to instituted against the petitioner and, therefore, they are not taken in bona fide exercise of powers. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the show cause notice issued is wholly vague and, is therefore not in conformity with the provisions of the section 59 of the Act. Even the order passed in appeal is not an order in law because it is not a reasoned order and no reasons were given for the modification of the order to a limited extent. 3. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Gangakhedkar for the respondents that after following all the procedure prescribed by law, the impugned orders came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the State Government in bona fide exercise of the powers. It is not correct to say that the order is based on state grounds nor could, the show cause notice, be termed as vague. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 630 (P.S. Rangnekar v. Dy. It is not correct to say that the order is based on state grounds nor could, the show cause notice, be termed as vague. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 630 (P.S. Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police State of Mh.)1, 1982 Cri.L.J. 2059 and (Banas Domnic Miranda v. A.K. Ankola others)2. 4. It is pertinent to note that inspite or several opportunities, the respondents have not chosen to file any affidavit in this case. Inspite of the best efforts of Shri Gangakhedkar, the learned Public Prosecutor, the Officers concerned have not chosen to attend the Court or to give him instructions. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor had to argue the case on the basis of the legal submissions only. Shri Gangakhedkar had prayed for further time to file affidavit and to produce relevant records. However, in our view it will be fair, at this stage to grant any further time, since rule in this case was issued on 14th February, 1986 and till today no affidavit is filed by the respondents. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to proceed with the matter without the affidavit in reply. 5. In the petition a specific statement has been made by the petitioner that the earlier externment order passed against him was quashed by the Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 720 of 1982. It is also alleged that the first three allegations made in the impugned show cause notice were also the subject matter of the earlier order. In the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 720 of 1982 decided on 6th of December, 1982 by Kurdukar and D.B. Deshpande, JJ., it was observed that there was an allegation that the externee had committed one murder, but it was not disputed that he was honourably acquitted by the Session Court. Inspite of these observations of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 720 of 1982, again the said allegation is repeated in the show cause notice as instance No. 1. In other matters also the externee was acquitted and it is the case of the petitioner that it was a honourable acquittal. To say the least the said instances are too remote and stale. As to why the chapter cases instituted against the petitioner came to be dropped, is also not explained. In other matters also the externee was acquitted and it is the case of the petitioner that it was a honourable acquittal. To say the least the said instances are too remote and stale. As to why the chapter cases instituted against the petitioner came to be dropped, is also not explained. In these circumstances by talking recourse to old and stale instances, which were the subject matter of the earlier proceedings, no order could have been passed under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act. In our view some of the grounds which were the subject matter of the earlier externment proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition No. 720 of 1982, could not have been made basis of the present externment proceedings in view of the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 720 of 1982. Once this finding is recorded, then the whole order must get vitiated. Hence rule is made absolute, the order of externment dated 3rd October, 1985 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 24-1-1986, are set aside. Rule made absolute. ------