JUDGMENT S.M Daud, j. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of extermnent made against the petitioner under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. Petitioner is a resident of Ulhasnagar in the District of Thane. On 6 November 1985, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulhasnagar Division, issued a notice to the petitioner and the material portion therefrom read thus: "Under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you in proceeding against you under clause (1)(b) of section. 55 of the said Act, and it' is proposed in those proceedings to extern you outside the limits of Gr. Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts, on the grounds mentioned in these allegations......... The following cognizable and non-cognizable offences are registered against you at Ulhasnagar Police Station. Sr. No. C.R. No. Section of law Date and time of offence Place of offence Disposal 1. I 233/85. 147, 148, 149 324, 352, 504 I.P.C. 26.9.85 0980 hrs. Zulelala P.T. market Ulhasnagar-1. 2. PubI1c N.C. No. 800/85. 323, 504 I.P.C. 25.9.85. 2000 hrs. Bharat Chowk Ulhasnagar-1. 3. Public N.C. No. 897/85. 506 I.P.C. 18.10.85 2245 hrs. Near Tejumal shop, U'Nagar-1. 4. Public N.C. No. 217/85. 506,426 I.P.C. 22.1085. 1915 hrs. Machhi Market U'Nagar-1." Petitioner responded to the notice and after enquiry was over, an order came to be passed which is at Exh. B. This order to the extent relevant recited as follows: "Whereas Commissioner of Police, Thane under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 10 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 has been conferred with power to exercise and perform the power functions and duties under section 56(1)(b) of the said Act since the year 1985 the proposed externee named Shera (petitioner) except during the period when he was in Police Custody or prison in the City of Ulhasnagar and surrounding areas is a dangerous bully (Gunda) and is in the habit of committing the offence of forming unlawful assembles, creating tension regarding houses and to cause injuries, assault by kicks and fists, causing damage by administering abuses, giving threats of murder, using dangerous weapons etc. Because of his movements the residents businessmen and professionals in the City of Ulhasnagar and surrounding areas, have been terrorised and alarmed and that the proposed externee is calculated to cause alarm, danger, harm and breach of the public peace to those persons because of which witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by reason of the apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons or property and there is a possibility of danger to the Public peace…….Since 1985, till today inspite of the registration of 3 cases under Chapter XVI, 2 cases under Chapter XVII and three complaints under Chapter XXII of IPC the proposed externee has not improved his conduct,……....The witnesses mentioned hereinabove are not ready and willing to come to give the evidence in public against the proposed externee out of fear to their persons or property and public peace…………….I am satisfied having considered the report and recommendation that the proposed externee is a Goonda tenancy………….and is in the habit of committing offences mentioned herein above and has not as yet improved his conduct and is not likely to improve the same in future, I am satisfied that the proposed externee is liable to be externed …………………And therefore under the powers conferred on me under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, I hereby order that the proposed externee be externed out of the limits of the Districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years from the date of the service of this order on the proposed externee." 3. Mr. Chitnis for the petitioner assails the order of externment on the ground that the externee was noticed to show cause vis-a-vis section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, whereas when it came to passing the order of externment, the authority took into consideration activities fal1ing if not exclusively under section 56(a) at least predominantly thereunder. The externee was not noticed to show cause under section 56(a), and therefore the externing authority was in error in taking into consideration activities ascribed to the externee and forming part only of section 56 (a). The answer to this submission given by Mr. The externee was not noticed to show cause under section 56(a), and therefore the externing authority was in error in taking into consideration activities ascribed to the externee and forming part only of section 56 (a). The answer to this submission given by Mr. Chopda representing the respondents, is that there is a certain degree of overlapping between clauses (a) and (b) of section 56 and that properly read, the order, here falls only under section 56(b) of the Act. There was no variance in the notice and the final order and the petition being without merit, deserved to be dismissed. Before we go to the contents of the notice and the order mentioned above, it is necessary to say a few words in respect of section 56(1). This section provides for externment of an individual in two contingencies. Clause (8) dea1s with what has been described as the proposed externee's movements or acts causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property". Clause (b) deals with the person who 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 IPC, or in the abatement of any such offence". In respect of both the clauses, the additional requirement is that the witnesses should not be willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee and this unwillingness being occasioned by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons or property. 'Clause (a) arose for consideration in Balu Shivling Dombe v. Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur1. Tarkunde J. speaking for the Bench had this to say as to the import of the clause: "In our view, the reference in clause (a) to ‘alarm, danger or harm' is a reference to the alarm danger or harm to the public generally and not to one or two individuals in the public…...It is possible in certain cases that if a person causes or threatens to cause harm to a few individuals, his movements or acts may cause or be calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to a considerable section of the public. There is, however, no finding by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the present case that the harm caused by the petitioner to Thite and Utpat had spread or was calculated to spread alarm danger or harm to the general public or a considerable section of the general public. In fact no such finding could possibly have been given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the hasis of the two minor incidents specified in clauses 2(h) and 2(i) of the notice..………………..Expression ‘alarm danger or harm "to persons or property' which occurs in section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act must if possible be interpreted as to ensure that the provisions of that section are in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. It must follow that the expression 'alarm. danger or harm to person or property' must be held to refer to the alarm danger or harm to persons or property of the public at large, and not of one or two individuals among the public.” 4. We need not say more on the scope of clause 56(a). In direct contra-distinction there to, is clause (b) Insofar as that clause is concerned the proposed externee can be proceeded against for (1) engaging in or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence: (2) an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, or XVII of the IPC or in the abatement of any such offence. Necessarily, clause (b) pertains to offences against individuals, which do not have the effect or impact of disturbing public order or tranquility. This interpretation is in conformity with well established can on that the legislature does not repeat itself in an enacement. When section 56 makes a distinction between two types of activities and deals with them in different clauses, it will not be correct to presume any overlapping. This interpretation is further strengthened by the disjunctive '"or" appearing in between clauses (a) and (b). Having got this position clear let us now turn to the notice at Exh. A. That the said notice falls under clause (b) is not only so recited in it, but is clear also from the contents a portion of, which have been reproduced above. Having got this position clear let us now turn to the notice at Exh. A. That the said notice falls under clause (b) is not only so recited in it, but is clear also from the contents a portion of, which have been reproduced above. There is no recital in the notice that the acts ascribed to the externee are "causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property". In fact, four distinct offences are mentioned an having been committed by the petitioner, and, then follows the recital that the witnesses to those offences are not willing to come forward and depose against the petitioner in public. In contrast to the clear intendment of the notice directing the petitioner to show cause vis-a-vis clause (b) of section 56, is, the order. Here, the major part relates to activities and movements which disturbed in 'general public and to use the words of the section itself "are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property". It is true that there is also a reference in the order to cases filed against the petitioner and the witnesses not being willing to come forward to testify against him in public. But in that case the externment order takes in its sweep activities falling under clauses (a) and (b) both. Yet, the externee was noticed to show cause only in relation to matters falling under clause (b). Therefore, the order is in excess of the opportunity given to the petitioner. However looked at, the order of externment cannot be sustained and hence petition has to be allowed. The order at Exh. B is hereby quashed and the rule made absolute. 1. 71 BLR. 79.