P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of externment dt. 30-7-1987 passed against him. By an order dt. 17-10-1987 the said order was confirmed in appeal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein on 30-1-1987 alleging the following activities: ( 2 ) ON 12-7-1985 at about 22-15 hours at the Malekwadi Navsari Bazar a crowd of about 100 persons of Hindu and Muslim community had gathered and were exchanging stones and sodawater bottles and in the said incident from the side of Hindu community the petitioner principal person and his associates and some other 50 persons were instigating the residents of the Malekwadi in the name of religion and were further instigating to throw stones and to take part in the incident. The information about the said incident reached the local police in time and therefore the local police came on the spot in time and to disperse the crowd of both the communities teargas shells were burst. If the police had not reached in time due to the activities of the petitioner the communal disturbances would have spread-over the city. The petitioner has a communal bias. He also takes an active part in the communal riots. ( 3 ) IN connection with the aforesaid incident F. I. R. No. 279 of 1985 of Athwa Police Lines Station for offences under Secs. 143 147 188 I. P. C. and 135 of the Bombay Police Act was lodged and the petitioner was arrested at about 20-30 hours on 13-7-1985 in connection with the aforesaid offences. Therefore thereafter charge-sheet the filed and the case is pending for trial. ( 4 ) ON 19-7-1985 at about 00-20 hours in Dhabuwalla Street Sagrampura a group of about 100 to 200 persons of Hindu and Muslims were exchanging stones and from the Hindus side the petitioner was the principal person. He instigated his associates (1) Laxman Lakho Atmaram Bariya and (2) Devji Proma Katiawadi both were residing at Malekwadi Navsari Bazar Surat and other 100 Hindu residents of Malekwadi used to take active part and also to exchange stones. He instigated his associates (1) Laxman Lakho Atmaram Bariya and (2) Devji Proma Katiawadi both were residing at Malekwadi Navsari Bazar Surat and other 100 Hindu residents of Malekwadi used to take active part and also to exchange stones. The information about the said incident reached the Police in time and therefore local police and the SRP reached the spot in time. To disperse the crowd Head Constable Bhavani Shankar Yadav of SRP group fired one round from his 303 rifle in air and dispersed the crowd. If the police had not reached the spot in time due to the aforesaid incident the communal tension (atmosphere) would have spread to the whole of Surat city. The petitioner has a communal bias. He takes active part in the communal violence. ( 5 ) IN connection with the aforesaid incident FIR No. 1287 of 1985 under Secs. 147 148 149 188 and 336 IPC and 135 Bombay Police Act was lodged in the Police Station. The petitioner was absconding. The police arrested the petitioner at 09-30 a. m. on 30-7-1985 The charge-sheet was filed and the case is still pending for trial. ( 6 ) ON 28-3-1986 Near Rajashree Talkies Navsari Bazar the petitioner was openly selling the tickets in black-market and around him about four of his associates were standing. During 18-30 hours Gulam Razal Mohmed Iqbal of Gopipura Momanawad had come to the petitioner at that time and he had addressed the petitioner as Dada of Momanawad ward in presence of the petitioners associates. Thereafter due to old enmity the petitioner slapped and abused Gulam Razal Mohmed Iqbal. He therefore ran away due to fear and thereafter he gave a complaint against the petitioner in the Athwa Lines Police Station which was registered as N. C:. No. 125 of 1981 for offences under Secs. 323 504 IPC at 19 00 hours on 28-3-1986. ( 7 ) AFTER consuming liquor the petitioner walked imbalancedly in public and under influence of liquor became mischievous created atmosphere of fear in public and therefore common public lived under the fear of the damage to their life and property. On 7-1-1985 at about 22-55 hours Near Char Rasta Malekwadi Navsari Bazar Surat the petitioner was behaving indecently and created chaos in public under the influence of liquor. On 7-1-1985 at about 22-55 hours Near Char Rasta Malekwadi Navsari Bazar Surat the petitioner was behaving indecently and created chaos in public under the influence of liquor. In connection with the said incident an offence was listed bearing No. CR No. 35 of 1985 Athwa Lines Police Station under Secs. 66 (1) (B) 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the same is still pending for trial. ( 8 ) THE petitioner was making breach of public tranquillity. The public is in constant fear that the petitioner is likely to cause damage to persons and property of the public. On 13-7-1985 the petitioner was arrested in connection with the communal riots between Hindu sod Muslim community persons exchanging Maramari on 12-7-1985 in Manekwadi Navsari Bazar and thereafter the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter the petitioner had again taken active part to aggravate the communal disturbances from the side of the Hindus. Therefore the petitioner was again arrested at 09-30 hours on 30-7-1985 under Sec. 151 Cr. P. C. and Head Constable Maganbhai Maklabhai Buckle No. 98 had filed a Criminal Complaint bearing No. 144 of 1985 dated 30-6-1985 in the Court of the Executive Magistrate for taking action under Sec. 107 of the Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE petitioner had committed offences of looting and beating (Maramari ). Me also showed Rampuri knife to the victims and threatened them to murder in case any complaint is lodged to the Police Station. The petitioner is giving such threats and due to his fear nobody lodges any complaint against the petitioner. On assurance that names will not be declared the victims were taken into confidence and their secret statements were recorded. ( 10 ) IN respect of the allegation No. 6 the Externing Authority has taken statements from three witnesses and to corroborate the same has taken the statements of unarmed Head Constable by name Pandurang Atmaram and Mr. M. D. Thakore. It is further stated in the show cause notice issued under Sec. 56 (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 that the petitioner is a Goonda that his activities are dangerous to the society that innocent persons were threatened of their life and property by showing lethal weapons and that out of fear public are afraid of filing complaint in the police. It has been further averred that the anti-social activity of the petitioner is increasing day by day and due to such activities of the petitioner an atmosphere of fear has been created in the Surat city. For this purpose the Externing Authority wanted to extern the petitioner from the area of jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner Surat city and also from the contiguous of the Surat rural area and the districts of Bharuch and Bulsar stating that the petitioner with the help of is associates and agents will carry on his activities in this age of speedy transportation and there is likelihood of the petitioner continuing such activities unless he is externed not only from the Surat city but also from the contiguous districts of the Surat city. ( 11 ) THE Externing Authority after taking into consideration the materials which has been placed before the authority such as the explanation tendered and oral explanation placed before it came to the conclusion that the Externing Authority is satisfied that the petitioner herein is a dangerous strong headed person and he is committing the offences enumerated in the show cause notice and that he has a tendency of committing the same. The Externing Authority was also of the opinion that the witnesses are not coming forward to file any complaint against the aforesaid person due to fear of their life and property and they also do not depost in public. For all these reasons the Externing Authority externed the petitioner from the areas of the Police Commissioner Surat city and the area of Surat rural contiguous to it and also from the districts of Bharuch and Bulsar for a period of 2 years with a direction that the petitioner should leave the aforesaid areas within two days through railway or road from the date of the receipt of the order of externment. As against the order of the Externing Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State of Gujarat under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act. The Government of Gujarat modified the order of externment and stated that the externment will operate only in respect of the district of Surat and not with regard to the contiguous districts mentioned in the externment order the petitioner has now come forward with this application. ( 12 ) MR. The Government of Gujarat modified the order of externment and stated that the externment will operate only in respect of the district of Surat and not with regard to the contiguous districts mentioned in the externment order the petitioner has now come forward with this application. ( 12 ) MR. M. C. Kapadia the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised various contentions which we will deal in the succeeding paragraphs. The respondents have also filed their reply for the averment in the main petition. Before adverting to the facts of the case with reference to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner we have to keep in mind that the show cause notice was issued under Sec. 56 (a) and (b ). The respondents have also filed their reply for the averment in the main petition. Before adverting to the facts of the case with reference to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner we have to keep in mind that the show cause notice was issued under Sec. 56 (a) and (b ). Section 56 reads as follows:"whenever it shall appear in areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec 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 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 or 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 there to) 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. "from the abovesaid section it is clear that the appropriate officer is of the opinion (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 an 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 person or their property by an order in writing duly served on the person concerned or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person 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. The order of the Externing Authority in this case clearly spells out that the Externing Authority is of the opinion that the petitioner is a dangerous strong headed person that he is committing the offences mentioned in the show cause notice that he has a tendency to commit the same that there is satisfactory material to prove all the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice that the witnesses are not coming forward to file any complaint against the petitioner due to fear of their life and property that the witnesses are not prepared to depose in public and that for all these reasons the petitioner has to be externed for a period of two years not only from the jurisdiction of the Surat city but also from the jurisdiction of the contiguous district of Bharuch and Bulsar. ( 13 ) IN the abovesaid background we can now consider the contentions putforth by Mr. Kapadia the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case. The first contention putforth by Mr. ( 13 ) IN the abovesaid background we can now consider the contentions putforth by Mr. Kapadia the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case. The first contention putforth by Mr. Kapadia is that the alleged activities of the petitioner is only in the area of Malekwadi Navsari Bazar within the jurisdiction of Athawa Lines Police Station and as such the allegation as if an atmosphere of fear is created in the Surat city as a whole shows the lack of application of mind by the Externing Authority. ( 14 ) WE do not think this argument has any substance. There is a specific mention of the area both in the show cause notice and in the externment order inasmuch as the alleged activities were perpetrated by the petitioner in the area of Malekwadi Navsari Bazar. The mere fact that an allegation is made that atmosphere of fear is created in the Surat city as a whole will not In any way vitiate the proceedings. ( 15 ) MR. Kapadia next contended that there is inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice even though the proposal for externing the petitioner was made by Inspector of Police earlier. Such a delay according to Mr. Kapadia vitiates the externment order. In support of this contention Mr. Kapadia brought to our notice the Judgment rendered in Special Criminal Applications No. 890 891 and 892 of 1986 dated 18-2-1987. In that Judgment one of the contentions taken by the petitioner therein was that the orders of externment were passed long time after the hearing was concluded. Inspite of the fact that arguments were over in that case the Externing Authority took nearly 18 months to pass the order. We further find in that case that there was absolutely no acceptable explanation for such an inordinate delay by the authorities concerned. The explanation of the authority to the effect that he was busy in other office work and carrying out bandoust work was found to be hardly sufficient explanation for such an inordinate delay. In those circumstances the Division Bench of our High Court of which I was a party held that the externment order is vitiated. As far as the present case is concerned the offences alleged against the petitioner were prior to 1-4-1986. On 5-4-1986 the Inspector of Police sent the proposal. In those circumstances the Division Bench of our High Court of which I was a party held that the externment order is vitiated. As far as the present case is concerned the offences alleged against the petitioner were prior to 1-4-1986. On 5-4-1986 the Inspector of Police sent the proposal. It was only on 26-9-1986 the Externing Authority raised certain querries and sent it for further particulars. The Inspector of Police complied with those particulars called for on 30-11-1986. Again no order was passed uptill 30-1-1987 on which date alone the show cause notice was issued. Mr. G. D. Bhatt the Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. M. D. Antani Superintendent of Police West Division Surat city wherein explanation has been offered for the delay in sending the show cause notice. Annexure C and Annexure D sufficiently explains the reasonable of the delay referred above. We have carefully gone through the various dates given by M. D. Antani Superintendent of Police West Division Surat city. In the above said Annexures we find that the explanation offered is reasonable and acceptable taking into consideration that the authority concerned wanted to satisfy itself by raising certain querries and getting explanation for the same before it could issue the show cause notice under the Bombay Police Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the Annexures referred above we are of the opinion that there is no delay much less inordinate delay to warrant a conclusion that the delay that has occurred in this case is fatal to the prosecution. In this connection we can also refer to the decision reported in Abedin Rasul Bombaywala v. Commissioner of Police Surat 1986 GLH Page 986. The facts of the Special Criminal Application No. 890 of 1986 and Others have no relevance to the facts of the present case. In that case after the conclusion of the arguments the Externing Authority has taken merely 18 months to pass the externment order and there was absolutely no proper explanation for such a delay. In those circumstances the Court held that the delay vitiates the externment order. Further all the cases cited by Mr. Kapadia are the cases wherein the delay has occurred after the issuance of the show cause notice under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. In those circumstances the Court held that the delay vitiates the externment order. Further all the cases cited by Mr. Kapadia are the cases wherein the delay has occurred after the issuance of the show cause notice under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. In the present case the delay is alleged prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. By anology Mr. Kapadia wants to apply the principle that the delay defeats the order of externment to this case also. In vie v of our discussion made above and also in view of the fact that it is for the authorities concerned to be doubly sure about the facts before it comes to the conclusion for issuing the show cause notice the delay alleged in our opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be considered as fatal. Hence we do not think that the decision cited by Mr. Kapadia will have any application to the facts of this case. ( 16 ) MR. Kapadia next contended that the authorities concerned have mechanically passed the order without applying their mind. The allegations made in the show cause notice and in the Externment Order cannot be taken as valid grounds for externing the petitioner herein. According to Mr. Kapadia there is absolutely no legal material on record for the purpose of passing the impugned order. It is further contended by Mr. Kapadia that for issuing show cause notice under Sec. 56 there must be prior registration of case and for that purpose he cites the decision reported in 1984 (1) Crimes Page 483. The learned Counsel further states that appellate authority cannot substitute his subjective satisfaction to modify the order of the Externing Authority. For the proposition that there is absolutely no valid ground for the issuance of the notice and also for the proposition that the authority cannot substitute his subjective satisfaction to modify the order of the Externing Authority the learned Counsel cites the decision rendered in the Special Criminal Application No. 639 of 1987 rendered by the Bench of our High Court on 28-7-1937 (and Magan Patel v. H. R. Ghelot Dy. Commissioner of Police 1988 GLR 361 ). Commissioner of Police 1988 GLR 361 ). In the above said decision the Externing Authority committed a grave error in observing that 9 prohibition cases mentioned in the show cause notice were pending trial inspite of the fact that in number of such cases there was acquittal. In those circumstances this Court observed that the Externing Authority has mechanically applied its mind without properly forming its subjective satisfaction on the relevant materials and as such the order of externment is vitiated. This Court also held in that decision that if some of the grounds on which the Externing Authority based its decision is found to be extraneous and irrelevant the externment order will become vitiated. Pressing this decision into service Mr. Kapadia contended that allegations 1 2 and 5 could not have been taken into consideration since preventive action has already been taken that allegation No. 3 relates to non-cognizable offence and that cannot be a ground for externment that allegation No. 4 relates to prohibition cases occurred about 2 years prior to the externment order and that such an offence is not germane for passing externment order under the Bombay Police Act and that allegation No. 6 cannot be relied upon since there is no registration of case in respect of the alleged offences in this allegation. ( 17 ) MR. G. D. Bhatt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor met all these arguments cogently which we are inclined to accept. Mr. G. D. Bhatt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the contention of Mr. Kapadia that what is conveyed in paragraph 9 of the show cause notice relates to injury to public health submitted that it is not public health that is mentioned in the show cause notice but it is public well-being that is sought to be conveyed by the show cause notice As we have seen already the show cause notice was given under Sec. 56 (a) and (b ). Such a notice can be given if the movements or acts of any person are causing calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property. Such a notice can be given if the movements or acts of any person are causing calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property. Under Sec. 56 (b) such a notice can also be given 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. No doubt the officer who issues the notice should also come to the opinion that the 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. It is clear from the show cause notice that the Officer has came to the conclusion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner herein due to apprehension on their part as regard the safety of their person or property. Allegation Nos. 1 to 6 cannot be considered to be extraneous considerations or invalid grounds for the purpose of issuing the show cause notice. Nowhere in Sec. 56 it is stated that there must be registration of case in respect of the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice before such allegations are made in the show cause notice. From everyone of the allegations it can be spelt out that the movements or acts of the petitioner will definitely cause alarm danger or harm to person or property and these allegations amply make out that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner 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. This observation of us answers every one of the contentions Mr. Kapadia has putforth in his arguments. In the affidavit-in-reply the Deputy Commissioner of Police Surat city has clearly stated that the offence punishable under the provisions of Secs. This observation of us answers every one of the contentions Mr. Kapadia has putforth in his arguments. In the affidavit-in-reply the Deputy Commissioner of Police Surat city has clearly stated that the offence punishable under the provisions of Secs. 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) (3) was of the Bombay Prohibition Act is the offence of drinking liquor and behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place which is likely to cause alarm and danger to person and property and hence the said offences have been considered in the show cause notice against the petitioner. Additional affidavit-in-reply find by Mr. M. R. Ghelot the Deputy Commissioner of Police amply makes out that the Externing Authority has thoroughly gone through the record and has heard the arguments before he passed an order in dispute. ( 18 ) THUS from the foregoing discussions made by us it is clear that the Order of Externment passed in this case is valid and we do not find any substance in any one of the arguments advanced by Mr. Kapadia the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner herein. ( 19 ) FOR all these reasons the Special Criminal Application is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. Rule discharged. .