JUDGMENT Agarwal J. - By this petition the order of externment passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nasik, against the Petitioner is impugned. The said order of externment was preceded by the service of the notice dated the 15th May 1986. The said notice issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act called upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be extended on the grounds contemplated under Section 56 (1) (b) of the said Act. After the Petitioner had appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate and shown cause, the impugned order of externment under section 56(1)(b) came to be passed. The Petitioner's appeal to the Government having failed, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. 2. Shri Kankaria, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Petition, has submitted that the externment order has taken into account material which did not find a place in the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the said Act. According to Shri Kankaria, the Petitioner had not been given an opportunity to explain the material taken into account while passing the order of externment. The Petitioner was thus prejudiced in showing cause against the proposed order of externment. 3. In our judgment, there is considerable force in the aforesaid submission, and the same will have to be accepted. If one has regard to the show cause notice issued under section 59 the same refers to seven offences which the Petitioner is alleged to have committed. Two of the said offences pertain to offences in respect of which the Court cases are shown to be pending, whereas the other five offences are shown to be under investigation. The impugned order of externment, however is based upon five offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the offences mentioned at serial Nos. 4 and 5 in the order of externment do not find a place in the show cause notice. Shri Kankaria is thus justified in his criticism that the said cases could not be relied upon for passing the order of externment. In any event the Petitioner had no notice regarding the said two offences alleged to have been committed by him. Consequently, be was deprived of his right to offer his explanation in regard to those offences. Shri Kankaria is thus justified in his criticism that the said cases could not be relied upon for passing the order of externment. In any event the Petitioner had no notice regarding the said two offences alleged to have been committed by him. Consequently, be was deprived of his right to offer his explanation in regard to those offences. If the said two offences are to be omitted while considering whether to pass or not to pass the order of externment one does not know whether the externing authority would have found this fit case to pass the impugned order of externment on the strength of the remaining three offences which were mentioned in the order of externment. The order of externment is thus liable to be set aside. 4. Shri Kankaria further submitted that though the show cause notice is styled as one under section 56(b), the allegations contained in the said notice would fall under Clause (a) of section 56(1) of the said Act. In support of the said submission, Shri Kankaria relied upon Charge No. 1 mentioned in the show cause notice which is to the effect that from the year 1984 in the vicinity of Satpur the Petitioner's movements and acts of goondaism has caused and/or calculated to cause harm, danger or alarm to the persons and shopkeepers in the said area. According to Shri Kankaria, the impugned order of externment passed under section 56(1)(b) will therefore, stand vitiated. 5. In our judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid submission of Shri Kankaria. Though the aforesaid Charge No. 1 has been mentioned in the show cause notice the said charge has not been relied upon while passing the impugned order of externment and the order has been properly passed under section 56(1)(b) of the said Act. It may be pointed out that Clause (b) of section 56(1) contemplates of their being reasonable ground for believing that the proposed externee is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence. The show cause notice recites that the Petitioner from 1984 has been committing thefts at the point of knife, has been causing alarm in the mind of people and shop owners and there are several offences registered against him. The show cause notice recites that the Petitioner from 1984 has been committing thefts at the point of knife, has been causing alarm in the mind of people and shop owners and there are several offences registered against him. It further recites that the Petitioner's movements are such that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence against him on account of the apprehension of the danger at his hands. The reference to the offences committed by the Petitioner can squarely bring the case of the Petitioner within Clause (b) of section 56(1) in as much as the Petitioner is shown to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no substance in this second contention of Shri Kankaria. 6. Before concluding we may make a reference to the prayer made by Shri Kothari, the learned Public Prosecutor, for adjournment to enable him to file affidavit in reply to this Petition. The impugned order of externment was passed on the 13th March, 1987. Hence, only a period of two months of externment remains to be suffered by the Petitioner. Moreover, rule on this Petition was issued on 7th October 1987 and was made returnable within one month. Despite the same no instructions have been received by the learned Public Prosecutor, despite reminders having been sent calling for instructions in that behalf. In this view of the matter we rejected his prayer for time for filing the affidavit in reply. 7. As we have found considerable merit in the first contention raised by Shri Kankaria. This Petition will have to be allowed. The impugned order of externment dated the 13th March, 1987 confirmed in Appeal by order dated 12th August, 1987 is set aside. Rule made absolute.