P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is for issuing an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and confirmed by the State of Gujarat in its Home Department. The Police Superintendent. K Division Ahmedabad City issued notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner herein mentioning the following allegations: (I) You have looted money by showing Rampury knife by giving first blows to the persons residing in the above localities or innocent persons passing through the said localities; (II) You have purchased articles of necessities of life from the businessmen dealing in the said items without payment of money and when the businessmen demand money for the same from you you are not paying the amount legally due to them for the said items and you beat said businessmen; ( 2 ) IT is further alleged in the notice that the petitioner is a dangerous and fanatic person and doing his activities by using force or violence. There is a specific mention in the notice that the petitioner was doing all these activities at the corner of Ramchandra Colony; Near Omnagar Crossing; Near Omnagar Sharda School; Near Chamanpura Sagar Hotel; Near Ghee-vali Chawli and Near Omnagar Muslim Society. All this area according to the show cause notice comes under the Shahibaug Police Station jurisdiction. The show cause notice has further mentioned specifically that these activities in the above said localities are being done by the petitioner since November 1985. On these allegations the petitioner submitted his explanation and the same was heard by the Police Superintendent. The original show cause notice was given on 17-6-1986. The Superintendent of Police got the explanation from the petitioner as early as in September 1987. By the end of September 1987 all the witnesses have been examined and the argument were also over during September 1987 itself. The Superintendent of Police sent the report to the externing authority i. e. Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City only on 19-2-1988. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who is the externing authority has passed the order of externment only on 11-4-1988. The Superintendent of Police sent the report to the externing authority i. e. Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City only on 19-2-1988. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who is the externing authority has passed the order of externment only on 11-4-1988. The said order passed by the externing authority was confirmed by the Home Department on 13 The externing authority not only externed the petitioner from the jurisdiction under the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City but also from Ahmedabad (Rural) Gandhinagar Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years. This was confirmed by the appellate authority also. ( 3 ) MR. Saiyed learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind in passing the said externment order and as such the same has to be quashed. Learned (Counsel further submitted that there is vagueness in mentioning the place of occurrence and also the period during which committed the offence. Finally the learned Counsel contended that there is inordinate delay in sending the report by the Superintendent of Police to the externing authority and as such the order of externment has to be quashed. ( 4 ) MR. B. D. Desai learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the show cause notice and also the order of externment clearly spell out the places where the petitioner was acting highhandedly and it specifically mentions the period during which such unlawful activities were carried out by the petitioner herein. As regards the delay Mr. B. D. Desai contended that the Superintendent of Police in his affidavit-in-reply has stated that he was busy in Police Bandobast and was dealing in various other externment orders and as such the delay has occurred in sending the report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. When Mr. Saiyed contended that there is delay even in passing the externment order subsequent to the receipt of the report from the Superintendent of Police Mr. Desai has contended that this contention has not been raised in the petition and as such the learned Counsel should not be permitted to put forward such a contention. If at all such a contention has been raised Mr. Desai submitted proper affidavit could have been filed in the Court. Desai has contended that this contention has not been raised in the petition and as such the learned Counsel should not be permitted to put forward such a contention. If at all such a contention has been raised Mr. Desai submitted proper affidavit could have been filed in the Court. ( 5 ) WE have carefully gone through the averments in the petition and also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties herein. The show cause notice clearly mentions the area in which the petitioner was doing his illegal activities. The allegations which we have extracted above clearly spell out that such activities come squarely under the provisions of See. 56 of The Bombay Police Act. It has also been clearly mentioned in the show cause notice which is dated 17-6-1985 that from November 1985 onwards such type of activities are being perpetrated by the petitioner herein. Hence we are of the view that the area of the activity and the time during which such activities were carried on have been properly given in the show cause notice and adverted to in the externment order also. Hence we do not appreciate the argument of Mr. Saiyed on these aspects of the case. ( 6 ) IT is next contended by Mr. Saiyed that the authorities concerned have mechanically applied their mind and externed the petitioner after the delay of nearly five months subsequent to the closing of the arguments. In externing a person which is in the public interest the authorities are expected to act promptly and if they delay the matter the same will spell out that there is no urgent need nor necessity to extern a person from a particular locality or the District. Definitely such externment orders curtail the freedom of movement of the person concerned. Any latches on the part of the authority concerned cannot be countenanced and it will definitely enure to the benefit of the party concerned and on that score he will be entitled to the benefit of quashing such an order of externment. As far as the present case is concerned the Superintendent of Police who heard the explanation and arguments closed the arguments as early as in September 1987 Only on 19-2-1988 the Superintendent of Police has sent the report to the externing authority who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad. As far as the present case is concerned the Superintendent of Police who heard the explanation and arguments closed the arguments as early as in September 1987 Only on 19-2-1988 the Superintendent of Police has sent the report to the externing authority who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad. In his affidavit the Superintendent of Police Mr. G. I. Doabiya has stated that the delay has occurred due to the fact that he was required to visit various Police Stations on various dates for checking various aspects of the Police administration including the papers regarding the Police investigations. He has also stated that on several occasions on various dates he remained busy with the Police Bandobast. Regarding the details of such work he has performed the Superintendent of Police has attached Annexure A to his affidavit-in-reply. Through my learned Brother R. J. Shah I was able to get Annexure A translated into English. It is clear from Annexure A that the officer concerned without giving any particulars as regards the time has generally stated that he was busy in various other duties on a particular day. Such type of vague and prototype assertion regarding the work performed on each day cannot in our opinion substantiate the genuineness of the delay caused in this case. When especially a person who is dangerous to the society is sought to be externed the authorities concerned should expeditiously take action instead of giving reasons which in our opinion are not acceptable is condone such inordinate delay Reading Annexure A along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Superintendent of Police we are not convinced in respect of the reasons given by the Superintendent of Police in sending the report with a delay of nearly five months. Mr. B. D. Desai cited the decision in the case of Banas Domnic Miranda v. A. K. Ankola and Others 1982 Cri. L J. 2059 to show that mere delay in passing the externment order cannot be fatal to quash such an order. In this case the Bench of the Bombay High Court has clearly stated that the delay in passing an order of externment is not ipso facto fatal to the externment order for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. Thus it is clear that if the delay in unavoidable and reasonable the explanations can be accepted. In this case the Bench of the Bombay High Court has clearly stated that the delay in passing an order of externment is not ipso facto fatal to the externment order for in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. Thus it is clear that if the delay in unavoidable and reasonable the explanations can be accepted. As far as the present case is concerned looking to the affidavit of Superintendent of Police and also Annexure A attached to his affidavit it does not spell out any unavoidable and reasonable explanation for such an inordinate delay in sending the report to the externing authority. In the case of Abbas Husain Fateh Mahammad v. The Deputy Police Commissioner Surat and Anr. 1988 Cri. L. J. 434 a Bench of cur High Court of which I was one of the members had an occasion to consider the delay of seven months and 17 days in passing the externment order after the arguments were heard. In the present case there is a delay of nearly five months in sending the report to the externing authority and there is seven months delay in passing the externment order subsequent to the submission of the explanation and argument by the petitioner herein. In the case cited above this Court held that the delay will definitely vitiate the externment order passed by authorities concerned. Such preventive actions should be taken immediately and any inordinate delay will definitely vitiate such an action taken as a preventive measure. Following the very same reasoning and principles laid down by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case we find that there is definitely inordinate delay in sending the report and therefore the order of externment cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) FOR all these reasons the externment order quashed and the rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute. .