JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, Ag. C.J.:---The order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan dated 10th February, 1986, which is challenged in this writ petition must get vitiated on a short ground that the externing authority has relied upon the material which was neither referred to nor incorporated in show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The allegations made in the show cause notice read as under :--- "1. Since November 1980, January 1982, August 1984 and in the year 1985 onwards in the localities of Ulhasnagar Camp. No. 3 Azadnagar Police Station, Thane Dist. your acts and movements are causing harm, alarm and danger to the residents of the afore said localities and areas in that. 2. That you assault the residents of the aforesaid localities and areas either suspecting them of giving information to the police about your illegal activities which offences are punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code. 3. That since November, 1980 you have committed several acts of the matter described in paras 1 and 2 above. 4. That the witness to your above described acts and movements are not willing to come forward and depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons in that they apprehend to the safety of their person or property, if they do so. Issued the original of this notice, dt. this 19th day of August, 1985 at Ulhasnagar." Sd/- S.V. Parchure. Asstt. Commi. of Police. H. Divn. Ulhasnagar." Whereas in the final order of externment the externing authority has relied upon two cases in which the externee has used knife; in one case under the Bombay Prohibition Act and one case of trespass and assault by first and below. In subsequent para a reference is made to the offences under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the I.P.C. and the Chapter case under Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly none of these cases were even remotely referred to in the show cause notice. Thus the externing authority has relied upon the material which is extraneous to the show cause notice and about which the petitioner has no opportunity to show cause or explain. Admittedly none of these cases were even remotely referred to in the show cause notice. Thus the externing authority has relied upon the material which is extraneous to the show cause notice and about which the petitioner has no opportunity to show cause or explain. Hence as already observed in several decisions of this Court and in the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1978 (Kanhaya Lal another v. State of Maharashtra anther)1, decided on 17th July, 1979, the order of externment must get vitiated. Also see 1964 M.L.J. 69, (Mahadeo Lanjewar v. State of Maharashtra)2. 3. Further from the bare reading of section 56 it is quite obvious that conviction under Bombay Prohibition Act, or pending criminal cases under that Act, would not be relevant for passing an order of externment under section 56 of the Act. See (Ashok v. Shri Ravindra)3, 1983(2) Bombay Cases Reporter 763. Similar it is also held by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 949 of 1986, (Lahu v. G.S. Thakar)4, decided by Mehta and Daud, JJ. on 3-8-1987 that an order of externment under section 55 cannot be based on Chapter cases. In view of this the impugned order of externment will have to be set aside. 4. However, before parting with this judgment we would like to emphasise that in many cases we found that though the order of externment on merits could be justified, because to the remissness on the part of the externing authority, this Court had no alternative but to set it aside. We feel that it is high time that the Government should impress upon the externing authority the desirability of complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act. We would like to suggest that whenever an externment order is set aside by the High Court for non compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law, the externing authority or the officers concerned, who are associated with the preparation of the show cause notice etc. must be held personally responsible and an action should be taken against them for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions and or requirements and safeguards, or at any rate an explanation from such authorities or officers must be called for by the Government, so that in future the orders which are justified on merits will not get vitiated. 5. must be held personally responsible and an action should be taken against them for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions and or requirements and safeguards, or at any rate an explanation from such authorities or officers must be called for by the Government, so that in future the orders which are justified on merits will not get vitiated. 5. In the view which we have taken this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence Rule is made absolute. The impugned externment order dated 10th February, 1986 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan is set aside. A copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary. Government of Maharashtra for information and necessary action. Petition allowed. -----