JUDGMENT - V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---All these petitions are filed challenging the Orders of Externment dated 1st October, 1986, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II. Thane, against the petitioners. 2. Shri Chitnis, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly submitted that the Orders of Externment are bad in law on the ground that in the notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, there is no averment to the effect that witnesses are not coming forward to depose in public due to fear of danger to their person or property. Secondly, it was contended that the orders are passed not in good faith and is mala fide exercise of power inasmuch as they are not passed on the grounds and for the purpose of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act but are passed only to nullify the effect of the order of bail passed in favour of the petitioners in Case No. 86 of 1986 in which all the petitioners were released on bail on 2nd August 1986 by the Sessions Court. Mr. Chitnis further contended, relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in (Pandharinath v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 630 and especially in paras 9 and 11 of the said judgment that in the fact and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not the persons against whom orders under section 56 need be passed inasmuch as they can be dealt with under the ordinary law. It was lastly contended that notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act in all these petitions are absolutely vague and therefore, the petitioners have been prejudiced in their right to give proper explanation for the consideration of the authority before the Externment Orders could be passed. 3. Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, contended that the petitions should not be entertained at all inasmuch as the petitioners have not filed any appeal to the State Government under section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. Shri Chopda further contended that the orders passed are absolutely lawful and have been passed after following the due procedure and they are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, ought to be confirmed. 4. Shri Chopda further contended that the orders passed are absolutely lawful and have been passed after following the due procedure and they are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, ought to be confirmed. 4. It is indeed true that normally, when the statute provides specifically, for preferring an appeal, the person aggrieved must prefer an appeal and after exhausting that remedy should approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the fact that the person has not availed of the alternate remedy does not ipso facto dis-entitle or bar the High Court from considering the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court will have to decide, in the facts and circumstances of each case, whether such petition should be entertained or not. In the present case, the petitioners have mentioned that after the Orders of Externment were served on the petitioners, they were thrown out of the areas specified in the orders and they have been staying at the mercy of their friends. They were not aware of the provisions of section 60 of the Bombay Police Act and they have not preferred any appeal within a period of 30 days to the State Government. They further contended that inasmuch as the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19 of the Constitution is violated, the petitions should be entertained by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are entertaining these petitions though the remedy of filing an appeal to the State Government was not availed of by the petitioners. In these positions, the rule was already issued and the petitions came up before us for final hearing after a considerable period of time. That was also a factor considered by us to entertain the petitions. 5. Though four contentions are raised by the petitioners in these petitions, as we find that there is considerable substance in the fourth contention, it is not necessary to deal with other contentions raised by the petitioners. In the notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, it is mentioned that during the period between the years 1982 and 1986, the petitioners committed several offences and acts as described therein. In the notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, it is mentioned that during the period between the years 1982 and 1986, the petitioners committed several offences and acts as described therein. Shri Chitnis, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were called upon to explain their acts and commissions of offences generally described between the period of four years ranging from 1982 to 1986. This long period, without any details, makes the notice so vague as to make it impossible for the petitioners to give proper explanation and thus denies their right to give explanation and to know generally the material particulars under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In this behalf, Shri Chitnis relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court delivered on 10th July, 1985 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 152 of 1985 (Shri Dayanu Atmaram Dhury v. Shri Y.C. Pawar antherr)2, decided by Shah Khatri, JJ. In the said case, the notice under section 59 was dated 6th September, 1984, and it mentioned :- "That since February 1982, your act and movements are causing and are calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to residents and shop-keepers of the locality ......." The learned Judges in that case held that the allegations related to activities spread over for a period of over two-and-a half years and ordinarily, it would be conceivable that the person to whom such a notice is given would be able to remember his own activities during a short period and make an effective representation in reply to the notice. However, it is not possible to expect a person to remember his own activities spread over for such a long period of two-and-a-half years and the mere mention of such period would be virtually denying the person his right to give an explanation under section 59. The Court further observed that as held by the Supreme Court in Paudharinath's case, not only the provisions of section 56 but also the provisions of section 59 have to be complied with and one has to balance the public interest and the right of the person to give an explanation under section 59. The Court further observed that as held by the Supreme Court in Paudharinath's case, not only the provisions of section 56 but also the provisions of section 59 have to be complied with and one has to balance the public interest and the right of the person to give an explanation under section 59. Having regard to the length of the period in the notice, the learned Judges held that the said notice was too vague making it almost impossible for the petitioner to give his explanation which is a right conferred on him under section 59. 6. In the notices in the present petitions before us, we find the period between the years 1982 and 1986 is also too large and that mentioning of such period makes the notices in all these petitions too vague to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to give proper explanation. In view of this, it has to be held that the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to give an explanation as required under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act and that must vitiate the final Orders of Externment passed against them. Accordingly, all the petitions succeed. The externment Orders dated 1st October, 1986 passed in all the petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. 7. However, each petitioner in each of the petitions through his learned Counsel has filed a written application in the following terms :--- "With a view to maintaining peace and tranquility at the village Vehele kambadpada in Taluka Bhiwandi, all the petitioners are ready and willing to give a bond of good behaviour in favour of respondent No. 1 for a period of 2 years in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of like amount. The petitioners hereby state that they shall not enter the village Vehele Kambadpada in Tel. Bhiwandi-wadi till the Sessions Case arising out of C.R. No. 86 of 86 is disposed of by Sessions Court at Thane and that they shall keep peace and good behaviour. 5000/- with one surety of like amount. The petitioners hereby state that they shall not enter the village Vehele Kambadpada in Tel. Bhiwandi-wadi till the Sessions Case arising out of C.R. No. 86 of 86 is disposed of by Sessions Court at Thane and that they shall keep peace and good behaviour. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by these conditions out of their own volition with a view to keeping peace in village Vehele Kombadpada of Taluka Bhiwandi." Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner in each of these petitions shall execute a bond of good behaviour in favour of respondent No. 1 for a period of two years from today in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount. The said bond also should include an undertaking that the petitioners shall not enter the village Vehele Kambadpada in Taluka Bhiwandi. District Thane till the Sessions Case arising out of C.R. No. 86 of 86 is disposed of by the Sessions Court at Thane and that he will keep peace and good behaviour. It is made clear, however, that with previous intimation to the Police Officer incharge of the Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi, the petitioners may enter the village for a day or two. Order accordingly. -----