G. G. SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Arts. 246/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows: On 14-6-1985, the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, issued a notice to one Ramesh Dube to show cause why action be not taken against him under the provisions of the M P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Loki Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by removing him, for a period of one year, from the district of Indore and contiguous districts of Dewas Dhar, Khaegone and Ujjain. In that notice, the proposed externee was informed of the general nature of the material allegations against him. It was stated that the movements and acts of Ramesh causing alarms, danger and harm to persons and properties and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that Ramesh was engaged in the commission of offences specified in section 12 (b) of the Act involving force or violence from the year 1969 till 1984 and that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against Ramesh by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons and properties, the reply to the show cause notice was submitted by Ramesh Dube and he also examined witnesses in his defense. Thereafter on 4-10-1985, an order of externment was passed against Ramesh but on appeal to the State Government, the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate for passing an order afresh after appreciating the material on record. Where after respondent No. 2 called upon Ramesh to state whether he wanted to adduce any further explanation and information was also sought from the police about the activities of Ramesh The Additional District Magistrate, after appreciating the entire material on record, passed an order of externment on 29-12-1986 under the provisions obsession 12 (a) and (b) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner, claiming to be the friend of Ramesh, has filed this petition. ( 3 ) THE first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in passing the order of externment, respondent No. 2 took into consideration offences alleged to have been committed by Ramesh from the year 1969. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner, claiming to be the friend of Ramesh, has filed this petition. ( 3 ) THE first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in passing the order of externment, respondent No. 2 took into consideration offences alleged to have been committed by Ramesh from the year 1969. It was contended that on account of consideration of those old incidents, the order of externment was vitiated. The contention cannot be up held. It is true that an order of externment under the Act is passed not for the purpose of punishing a person for his past acts but with a view to prevent activity of an Individual for maintenance of public order. But as held by this Court in Laxmi Prasad Bajpai v. District Magistrate, Bilaspur anti another1, instances of past activities are certainly relevant for consideration for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the person concerned is likely to indulge in objectionable activities specified in section 12 (a) and (b) of the Act. ( 4 ) IT, was then contended that after the case was remanded to the Addi. District Magistrate by the State Government for passing an order afresh, the Addi. Distt. Magistrate sought information from the police regarding the activities of Ramesh and Ramesh had no opportunity to offer any explanation. It is, however, not disputed that after the matter was remanded to respondent No. 2, he issued a notice to Ramesh calling upon him to adduce any further explanation. Respondent No. 2 also sought information from the police regarding the present activities of Ramesh for ascertaining whether any preventive action under the Act was justified after the remand. There was information from the police that Ramesh was still engaged in objectionable activities. Ramesh was given opportunity to adduce any further explanation. It was contended that details of incidents referred to by the police were not communicated to Ramesh. But as held by the Supreme Court in Pandharinath Shridhar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra2 all that a proposed externee is entitled to know is the general nature of material allegations against him and thus he is not entitled to be informed of specific particulars relating to material allegations. The following observations in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 630 (supra) are pertinent: An order of externment can be passed under Cl. The following observations in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 630 (supra) are pertinent: An order of externment can be passed under Cl. (a) or (b) of section 56 if, and only if, the authority concerned is satisfied that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons or properties. A full and complete disclosure of particulars, such as is requisite in an open prosecution, will frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding. If the show cause notice were to furnish to the proposed externee, concrete date like specific dates of incidents or the names of persons involved in those incidents, it would be easy enough to fix the identity of those, who, out of fear of injury to their persons or properties, are unwilling to depose in public. There is a brand of lawless element in society, which it is impossible to bring tobook by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials, there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisals, witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. That explains why section 59 of the Act Imposes but a limited obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee of the general nature of the material allegations against him, That obligation fixes the limits of the correlative right of the proposed externee. He is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under section 56, to know the material allegations against him and the general nature of those allegations. He is not entitled to informed of specific particulars relating to the material allegations. In view of the aforesaid observations, it cannot be held that as a result of non-disclosure of specific incidents referred to by the police, the order of externment is vitiated. ( 5 ) IT is well settled that an, order of externment passed under the provisions of the Act cannot be reviewed by this Court as an appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the impugned order was malafide or that in passing that order, the authorities have contravened any provisions of the Act. No case, in our opinion, is made out for entertaining this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the impugned order was malafide or that in passing that order, the authorities have contravened any provisions of the Act. No case, in our opinion, is made out for entertaining this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THE petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .