JUDGMENT - V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---The petitioner challenges the Order of Externment dated 26th August, 1986, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur Division, Solapur. 2. Shri Katikar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and that he is actually doing business and as such, the allegations made are totally false and the order is passed mala fide. Shri Katikar further contended that in the notice purporting to be under section 59 issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Solapur City, only two pending cases, namely, 246/79 and 158/85, are mentioned, the third being proceedings under section 110 whereas in the notice dated 9th May, 1986, issued under section 59 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur Division, Solapur, several general allegations are made. In the final Order of Externment, the Externing Authority mentioned that since the last five years the petitioner has committed several acts mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (b) of para 1 of the said order. If the notice under section 59 and the Order of Externment under section 56 are considered, there is great variance. 3. Shri Gangakhedkar, the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that there is nothing wrong with the notice under section 59 and the order under section 56 and the Externment Order is lawful and proper. 4. If the notice under section 59 is perused, it mentions that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Solapur Division, Solapur, has reported that the petitioner is a habitual offender; He is doing nothing; that he always wanders with deadly weapons in his hand while drunk; that he takes part in communal riots; that he extorts money from people by coercion; and that due to fear, nobody comes forward to give evidence against him. The notice also mentions two offences registered against him, one in 1979 and the other in 1985. It is pertinent to note that no period is mentioned in the notice during which the petitioner is alleged to have done several acts which are mentioned in the notice. However, it we peruse the final Order of Externment, it mentions that the petitioner has committed several such acts during the period of last five years and the several acts described are that the petitioners assaults residents and shopkeepers suspecting them of giving information to the police about his illegal activities and demands money from the public for his livelihood. However, it we peruse the final Order of Externment, it mentions that the petitioner has committed several such acts during the period of last five years and the several acts described are that the petitioners assaults residents and shopkeepers suspecting them of giving information to the police about his illegal activities and demands money from the public for his livelihood. It is clear that firstly the petitioner is prejudiced as he was given no notice even generally about the period during which he was alleged to have committed several acts or offences. Secondly, the final order of Externment mentions acts which are not mentioned in the notice under section 59, of the Bombay Police Act. These facts must vitiate the Order of Externment under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. 5. According, the petition is allowed. The order of Externment passed against the petitioner impugned in the petition is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. -----