PATIL, J. ( 1 ) 1. These petitions are directed against the common order of externment passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sidar, under Sac. 55 of the Karnataka Police act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in case No. REV/mag/cr-20/83-84 on his file. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS Ambadas alias Ramesh and Shivakumar in Cr. P. Nos. 382 and 781 of 1984, respectively, are said to be students. On a report made by the Circle inspector of Police, Bhalki, that the petitioners had been continuously indulging in offences involving force and violence punishable under Chapter XI, xvi, XVII of the Indian Penal Code and a number of cases had been registered against them and pending trial and it was necessary to take action under S. 55 (b) of the Act, the Magistrate, after issuing show causa notice and holding; inquiry, having made the impugned order, the petitioners have approached this court invoking the inherent powers on the ground that the externment order passed by the Magistrate is not in compliance with S. 55 of the Act and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. ( 3 ) MR. Shivaraj Patil and Mr. Ravi naik, learned cour. sel for the petitioners, submitted that not only the Magistrate had proceeded to make the order influenced by various proceedings instituted against the three petitioners (there boing no criminal case against Shivekumar), but he has not recorded definite finding that witnesses are not willing to coma forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. As a matter of fact, two witnesses among the public who had been examined by the Magistrate in the proceedings before him had denied about there being any fear in their mind or others of they not giving evidence in public against the petitioners therefore, the impugned extsrnment order passed by the Magistrate deserves to be set aside. ( 4 ) MR. Koti learned High Court government Pieader appearing for the state, while refuting these contentions submitted, it would not be proper to invoke the provisions of S. 482 Cr. P. C. , where remedy by way of appeal was available, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed on this score alone. ( 4 ) MR. Koti learned High Court government Pieader appearing for the state, while refuting these contentions submitted, it would not be proper to invoke the provisions of S. 482 Cr. P. C. , where remedy by way of appeal was available, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed on this score alone. ( 5 ) NO doubt if there is express provision in tne statute governing a particular subject matter, there is no scope for invoking or exercising inherent powers of the court becouse the court ought to spply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject matter and it being an extraordinary power has to be sparingly exercised with great care and caution, the power cannot be invoked where another remedy is available and if any matter is covered by express provisions of the statute; the High Court cannot and need not give a go bye invoking the provisions of S. 482 because that may amount to evolving new procedure in the garb of exercise of inherent powers, and that is well settled. Although as provided under S. 59 of the act a remedy by appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under S. 55 of the act and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of S. 59 together with S. 60 of the Act, it would appear that there is no bar against the court interfering with such order of extarnment in the circumstances as enumerated in S. 60 of the Act - (1) where tha procedure laid down in sub-sec. (1) of S. 58 is not followed ; (2) there is no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have been based its order ; and (3) the authority making the order is not of the opinion that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the persons in respect of whom an order is made under S. 55. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must ; because under clause (b) of S. 55, externment order could be made only where it appears there are reasonable grounds for believirg that person or persons is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence an offence punishable under Chapter XII, xvi or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and 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 regards the safety of their person or property. Here in the case on hand, although the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to have refe red to so many criminal cases instituted against the three of the petitioners, but no where he is of the opinion that cases against those of the persons had ended in acquittal because of the witnesses unwilling to give evidence for fear of safety of person or property. In fact, no material worth the name has been placed to show that the cases ended in acquittal because of such fear. At one stage, of course the S. D. M appears to have thought, that may be so, but there is no basis for the same. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Premchand v Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 613 ) mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing an order of externment. Some ground or the other is not adequate for making the order of externment. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safaty. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental frredoms. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental frredoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. The Act permits externment, provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial scrutiny. It would appear, the learned S. D. M. has been more influenced by the secret report sent by the circle Inspector of Police about such apprehension and the secret visit to the place, which has not been put to the petitioners. In substance, the S. D. M. has failed to form an opinion on tangible material that witnesses wera not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioners. The latter part of the requirement of Clause (b) of s. 55 having not been fulfilled, the impugned order of externment passed cannot be sustained. The petitions are therefore allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sub divisional Magistrate is set aside. Petitions Allowed. --- *** --- .