P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has come forward with this Special Criminal Application for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice at Annexure A Externment Order at Annexure B and the order confirming the Externment Order at Annexure C to this petition. The Superintendent of Police Ahmedabad City issued notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limit of Ahmedabad City Police Commissioners jurisdiction limit and its surrounding areas and also from Ahmedabad Rural areas Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana District limits for the charges mentioned in the said notice. The petitioner herein gave his explanation and produced evidence in respect of his case. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) Ahmedabad City after considering all the materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous and dreadful person and is also committing 174 offences punishable under Chapter XVI XVII of the Indian Penal Code. On this conclusion he directed the petitioner to go out within two days from the receipt of his externment order by road or rail via. Baroda from the area under the Ahmedabad City Police Commissioner and its surrounding area Ahmedabad Rural area Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Districts. This externment order was passed on 18th January 1986. Aggrieved by this externment order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government. The Government of Gujarat in its Home Department passed order dated 23-6-86 under Section 60 (3) of the Bombay Police Act confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 18th January 1986. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come for ward with the abovesaid Special Criminal Application. Mr. Barejiya the learned counsel appearing for the pettioner took us through the show cause notice externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and also the order passed by the Gujarat Government in its Home Department. It is the say of the learned counsel that the petitioner being harassed by the State Government with the mala fide intention of curbing the activities of the petitioner by invoking the Bombay Police Act National Security Act and Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. Mr. It is the say of the learned counsel that the petitioner being harassed by the State Government with the mala fide intention of curbing the activities of the petitioner by invoking the Bombay Police Act National Security Act and Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. Mr. Barejiya further contended that the authorities concerned in a mechanical way and without application of their mind had passed the order of externment on flimsy and non-existent grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that the show cause notice given by the Superintendent of Police which is Annexure A to this Special Criminal Application is vague both with regard to the offence committed and also in respect of the places and times in which and during which such offences were committed. The learned counsel further submitted that the show cause notice was issued as early as on 11-9-84 and there is absolutely no need to continue the externment order as late as this date. Finally the learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is a lawabiding citizen and a popular inhabitant of this city and that is why he has been elected from five wards of the Ahmedabad City to represent the Ahmedabad City Municipal Corporation in the recent elections. Hence there is absolutely no need either to pass such an order of externment nor to continue the same as on date. ( 2 ) THE charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows:that you are a dangerous and head strong person you are doing such activities near Prem Darwaja (Gate) Wagri-wad near Charvat Popatiawad Pathanwada near Mainaota Popatiawad which are situated in Kalupur Police Station limit. You are doing following activities in the above since the month of February 1983 (1) You are looting money from the residents and passers-by innocent persons by showing Rampuri knife by fist blow and hand blow or by giving threats of murder. (2) You are beating persons on the doubt that the resident of above localities or passers-by are either informing to the police or they are police Batmidars (who give -information to the police) of your illegal wine business. (2) You are beating persons on the doubt that the resident of above localities or passers-by are either informing to the police or they are police Batmidars (who give -information to the police) of your illegal wine business. It is further stated in that notice that the authority concerned decides to extern the petitioner from the limit of Ahmedabad City Police Commissioners jurisdictional limit and its surrounding area and has also decided to extern the petitioner from Ahmedabad Rural area Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Dis 175 trict limits. There is a further averment in the notice that if the petitioner is not externed from these places there are possibilities that the petitioner will through his associates and agents do dangerous activities and will continue the same. It is clear from the submission made by Mr. Barejiya that the petitioner submitted his explanation and has also examined 20 witnesses on his side and the last witness examined was on 17-10-1984. The arguments were heard on 27-9-1985 and the order of externment was passed on 18-1-1986. It is clear from the submission made by Mr. Barejiya that the petitioner submitted his explanation and has also examined 20 witnesses on his side and the last witness examined was on 17-10-1984. The arguments were heard on 27-9-1985 and the order of externment was passed on 18-1-1986. This order of externment was confirmed by the order of the Government on 23 Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (Act No. XXII of 1951) deals with removal of persons about to commit offence;56 Whenever it shall appear in 5 areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend the provisions of this section to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate 6 (*) empowered by the State Government in that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person 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 Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regard the safety of their person or property or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant the said officer may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction (or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto) by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the said area (or the area and such contiguous districts or part thereof as the case may be ) from which he was directed to remove himself. Section 59 of the said Act deals with the hearing to be given before order under Sections 55 56 or 57 is passed and it reads as follows:section 59 (1) Before an order under Section 55 56 or 57 is passed against any person the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness produced by him the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application; and examine such witness unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by an advocate or attorney for the purpose of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. 176 (2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Section 55 56 or 57 require such person to appear before him and to pass a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to pass the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the enquiry it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed. If the person fails to pass the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the enquiry it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed. It is clear from the abovesaid Section 56 that an order of externment can be passed if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person 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 Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regard the safety of their person or property. There is a specific allegation in the show cause notice to the effect that the petitioner is looting money from the residents and passersby and from innocent persons by showing Rampuri knife or by fist blow or by hand blows or by giving threats of murder. There is also allegation to the effect that the petitioner is beating persons on the doubt that the residents of the localities mentioned in the show cause notice are informing the police or they are police Batmidars of the petitioners illegal wine business. The Externing Authority after considering the explanation and the evidence in support of the petitioner was satisfied that the petitioner is dangerous and dreadful person and is engaging in the abovesaid activities which are punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The Externing Authority was also convinced that such activities were perpetrated by the petitioner near Prem Darwaja (Gate) Wagri-wad near Charvat Popatiawad Pathanwada and near Mainaota Popatiawad and such acts were committed since February 1983. On such finding the Externing Authority passed the Externment Order which we have referred above after observing that if the petitioner is not externed from the contiguous districts also he through his companions and agents after coming from the surrounding districts will do such activities. On such finding the Externing Authority passed the Externment Order which we have referred above after observing that if the petitioner is not externed from the contiguous districts also he through his companions and agents after coming from the surrounding districts will do such activities. From the abovesaid narration of facts it is clear that the area of the petitioners activities and the time from which such activities are committed by the petitioner have been properly given to show cause and they have been adverted to in the externment order also. Hence the argument of Mr. Barejiya that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague and that the time of such commission of offence has also not been specifically spelt out cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) NO doubt it is clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner has to face murder charge and has also to undergo detention under National Security Act and Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. It is also clear from the facts that the petitioner was contesting the various detention orders passed against him and was able to get them revoked. It is also true that the petitioner was able to contest the election in the City Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and came out successfully in five constituencies. But these facts cannot in any way dilute the specific allegations made in 177 the show cause notice which is Annexure A to this Special Criminal Application and the orders passed by the respective authorities which are Annexures B and C to the Special Criminal Application. Such show cause notice was given under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act and the procedure envisaged for passing an externment order which is under Section 59 of the said Act have been properly followed in this case. It is not in dispute that these Sections of the Bombay Police Act have been held to be valid under the Constitution as per the decision reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court page 1468. Both from the facts of the case and also from the manner and method of the procedure adopted by the authorities concerned no mala fides can be spelt out in externing the petitioner from the City of Ahmedabad and from the contiguous districts. Both from the facts of the case and also from the manner and method of the procedure adopted by the authorities concerned no mala fides can be spelt out in externing the petitioner from the City of Ahmedabad and from the contiguous districts. We are also convinced that the area of the activities of the petitioner and the period during which such activities are being carried out have been specifically and clearly given in the show cause notice and in the externment order. ( 4 ) MR. Barejiya then strenuously contended that there is inordinate delay in passing the order of externment. According to the learned counsel the show cause notice was given as early as on 11-9-1984 the last witness was examined as early as on 17-10-1984 but the arguments were heard only on 27 The learned counsel further stated that there was also delay in passing the externment order subsequent to the hearing of the arguments and that the externment order was passed only on 18-1-1986. ( 5 ) MR. G. D. Bhatt the learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed before us the records of the Police Department. The respondents have also filed affidavit-in-reply refuting the contentions of the petitioner herein. It is clear from the records that the petitioner filed his defence statement before the Enquiry Officer on 27 On 25-1-1985 one Mr. A. G. Saiyad an Advocate who appeared on behalf of the petitioner sought for an adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 16-2-1985. Even on that day Mr. A. G. Saiyad wanted an adjournment to 19-2-1985 stating that his client i. e. the petitioner herein was not able to be present. On 19 as per the record neither Mr. A. G. Saiyad nor the petitioner turned up. On 4-4-1985 a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating him that the matter is fixed on 15-4-1985. That notice could not be served since petitioners house was found locked and the petitioner could not be traced. On 20 fresh notice was issued to the petitioner intimating him that the case is posted on 10-5-1985. Even that notice could not be served owing to the fact that the petitioner was not available in his residence and the notice sent was returned with an endorsement not found. On 11-9-1985 another communication was sent by reissuing the notice to the petitioner through the Police Sub-Inspector of Kalupur. Even that notice could not be served owing to the fact that the petitioner was not available in his residence and the notice sent was returned with an endorsement not found. On 11-9-1985 another communication was sent by reissuing the notice to the petitioner through the Police Sub-Inspector of Kalupur. This notice also could not be served and hence it was affixed on the petitioners house on 20-9-1985 stating that he has to appear before the authority concerned on 21-9-1985. But the petitioner did not appear before the authority concerned. On 27-9-1985 Mr. A. G. Saiyed filed a final defence statement and according to Mr. Barejiya the arguments were heard on 27-9-1985. The abovesaid narration of facts and the dates culled out from the records produced by the Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. G. D. Bhatt clearly show that due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner the matter had to be adjourned 178 for several times. Inspite of so much of adjournment the Enquiry Officer was able to examine as many as 20 witnesses produced by the petitioner. The argument of Mr. Barejiya to the effect that the authority concerned need not have waited for hearing either the petitioner or his counsel after the examination of witnesses on or after the filing of the explanation since Section 59 of the Act does not visualise giving of any personal hearing to the petitioner has no substance. We do not think that this argument will in any way help the petitioner herein. The fact that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his argument and for that purpose adjournments were granted both on the request made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also suo motu cannot be adversely commented upon as if such a delay vitiates the externment order. Mr. Barejiya further submitted that there is a delay of more than 3 months in passing the order of externment after the arguments were heard. This according to the learned counsel vitiates the externment order passed as late as on 18-1-86. In this connection we can usefully refer to the explanation given by the externing authority who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) Ahmedabad City. This according to the learned counsel vitiates the externment order passed as late as on 18-1-86. In this connection we can usefully refer to the explanation given by the externing authority who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration) Ahmedabad City. In his affidavit-in reply the Deputy Commissioner has stated as follows:i further say that in the present case the arguments were heard by the externing authority on 27-9-85 and thereafter the Externing Authority was busy in the work of office administration as well as attending to bandobust and visiting various police stations from time to time. I say that I am working as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admn) Ahmedabad. At the relevant time also I was working in the aforesaid capacity. I say that during the interregnum of the date of hearing of the oral arguments i. e. from 27-9-85 till the date of passing of the externment order on 18-1-86 I had to attend to my many duties in various capacities. During the aforesaid period and particularly on 3-10-85 10 25 27 29 7 23 3 and 4-1-86 I had visited various police lines with a view to look after the problems and welfare of police personnel. I further say that during the interregnum in question I also attended to supervision of police bandobust on account of visit of Ahmedabad city by various dignitories on 12-12-85 28 29 and 5-1-86. I further say that there were communal riots in the City of Ahmedabad during the aforesaid interregnum and I had to attend the supervision of police bandobust regarding the same. I further say that during religious holidays as well as call for Ahmedabad BANDH on several days during the aforesaid interregnum also I was required to attend to work of supervision of police BANDOBUST. I further say that during the aforesaid period I had heard and passed orders in 11 other externment proceedings. I further say that during the major portion of the aforesaid period I was also holding charge as Dy. Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) and I had to discharge several time-consuming duties in the said capacity as well. I further say that I had availed of leave for about 7 days during the aforesaid period. I further say that I have taken some time in studying the case papers of the present externment proceedings and had ultimately passed order of externment on 18-1-1986. I further say that I had availed of leave for about 7 days during the aforesaid period. I further say that I have taken some time in studying the case papers of the present externment proceedings and had ultimately passed order of externment on 18-1-1986. Thus there is no delay in passing the order of externment in question and in any case there is valid explanation in time taken for passing the externment order. In our opinion the abovesaid explanation is cogent and clear to satisfy us that the delay has been properly 179 explained. In 1986 GLH page 986 a Bench of our High Court (to which one of us Gokulakrishnan C. J. was also a party) clearly held: Para 4: In the show-cause notice there are clear averments as regards activities indulged in by the petitioner herein and also there is a specific averment that the petitioner commits offences involving force and violence punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In allegation No. 9 of the show cause notice it has also been specifically averred that the petitioner is involved in an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 114 IPC in an offence punishable under Sections 452 323 504 506 (2) and 114 IPC in an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 114 IPC and in an offence punishable under Section 25 (c) of the Arms Act. It has also been made clear in the show cause notice that offences enumerated as allegations I to 9 are being perpetrated since 1981. The abovesaid particulars in the show cause notice not only describe the dangerous activities indulged in by the petitioner herein but also state that those activities are being committed since 1981. PARA 5. Mr. Kapadia next contended that there is delay in passing the order of externment. The show cause notice is dated 31-12-1984 and is received by the petitioner on 2-1-1985. The externment order was passed on 2 In paragraph 6 of the reply the respondents have given clear and cogent explanation for the delay in passing the externment order. We do not think that it is necessary to repeat the detailed averments regarding the adjournments granted mostly on the request of the petitioner. Mr. The externment order was passed on 2 In paragraph 6 of the reply the respondents have given clear and cogent explanation for the delay in passing the externment order. We do not think that it is necessary to repeat the detailed averments regarding the adjournments granted mostly on the request of the petitioner. Mr. Kapadia pointed out that after hearing the oral arguments on 5-11-1985 the externing authority has taken nearly 58 days for passing the impugned order on 2 This the respondents have explained by stating that the externing authority who originally heard the matter had gone out of Surat for training to Hyderabad that the case was transferred to the present externing authority who passed the order on 2 that the present externing authority after fully perusing the records and proceedings passed the order of externment on 2-1-1986. Considering the volume of evidence and the number of adjournments the case has to undergo we do not think that the delay between the arguments and the passing of the externment order can be considered as unduly prolonged. Thus we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Kapadia that the externment order cannot be sustained due to the long delay. In 1987 GLH page 176 (= 1987 (1) GLH 176 ) a Bench of our High Court to which (one of us P. R. Gokulakrishnan C. J. was a party) in para 9 held as follows:para 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the period of nine months between the present show cause notice and the impugned externment order is also unreasonably a long period. There is no allegation about such delay in the petition and therefore there is no reply to that. However on going through the record of the externing authority it appears that during this period of 9 months the petitioner had asked for and obtained about 29 adjournments. Thus there is no delay on the part of the externing authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the petitioner went on asking for the adjournments the externing authority was not justified in granting such adjournments and allowing the proceedings to be delayed. This argument has no 180 merit and is required to be summarily rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the petitioner went on asking for the adjournments the externing authority was not justified in granting such adjournments and allowing the proceedings to be delayed. This argument has no 180 merit and is required to be summarily rejected. The authority has given full and reasonable opportunity and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of his own actions or wrongs. Therefore this contention regarding delay in passing the externment order has also no merit. ( 6 ) WE are of the view that the abovesaid decisions will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and it is clear from the facts of this case that there is no vagueness in giving the area and the period of the offence that there is no mala fides in passing the externment order against the petitioner that there is proper application of mind by the externing authority before passing the impugned order and that there is no delay in passing such an externment order. ( 7 ) IN 1986 GLH page 605 a Bench of our High Court (to which one of us P. R. Gokulakrishnan C. J. was also a party) observed at para 9 as follows :para 9. The next contention raised by Mr. Shethna is that there is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner will carry on his unlawful activity in the contiguous districts. In the externment order it is mentioned that if the petitioner is not externed form the contiguous Districts he will carry on such illegal activities with his associates. This is purely a subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned and the externing authority after perusing the materials on record and adverting to the activities of the petitioner herein thought it fit that he has to be externed even from the contiguous Districts Such a subjective satisfaction arrived at by the externing authority after applying its mind to the materials on record cannot be interfered with at the the writ jurisdiction stage. ( 8 ) IT is thus clear from the abovementioned decision that passing of such externment order is purely on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned. As we have held in paragraph supra the Externing Authority after perusing the records hearing the witnesses produced by the petitioner came to the subjective satisfaction of passing the impugned externment order. As we have held in paragraph supra the Externing Authority after perusing the records hearing the witnesses produced by the petitioner came to the subjective satisfaction of passing the impugned externment order. Following the above decision we are of the view that the order of externment passed by the authority concerned on the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be interfered with. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons we do not find any merits in this Special Criminal Application and accordingly the same is dismissed. ( 10 ) MR. Barejiya learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral submission under Article 134a (b) read with Article 134 for grant of leave to file appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by us today in this Special Criminal Application. After considering the relevant facts of the case we came to the conclusion that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authorities concerned are on factual averments made in the show cause notice and there is absolutely no malafides in passing such an order. In our opinion no substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this case for us to grant leave prayed for preferring an the appeal to the Supreme Court Hence this prayer is refused. Rule discharged. .