KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the present petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Surat City on 6-9-1990 by which the petitioner was ordered to keep good behaviour and not to indulge in criminal acts for a period of two years and to give surety bond for the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as also personal bond for the like amount within a period of ten days from the date of the order. The aforesaid order was passed by the Deputy commissioner of Police, Surat City in the proceedings which were initiated for externment of the petitioner under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. Said proceedings were initiated by giving notice dated 22-5-1990 under Sec. 59 of the said Act. In the said notice certain allegations are made against the petitioner. First allegation is with regard to commission of offences under Chapters XVI and xvii of the I. P. C. The first case being C. R. No. 85 of 1989 is for the offences under Secs. 324 and 114 of I. P. C. which is committed on 18-11-1989 and is pending trial. The second case being C. R. No. 106 of 1990 is for the offences under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 337, 436, 323, 504, 427 of I. P. C. as also for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Said case was committed on 6-5-1990. The third case being N. C. complaint being C. R. No. 129 of 1989 is for the offences under Secs. 323, 504 and 114 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) IN the second allegation it is alleged that the petitioner was a head-strong person and he had also impressed upon the people as "dada" and as a Dada he was beating innocent people for minor causes and he was snatching away the articles and money from the people. ( 3 ) THE third allegation is that petitioner was beating persons who are not acting according to his wishes and/or orders. ( 4 ) THE fourth allegation is that under the shield of being a social worker and/or union leader he was giving threat of strike to the factory owners and was thereby knocking out money from them and was also knocking out money from the people by giving temptation to give huts and residential accommodation. 4a. ( 4 ) THE fourth allegation is that under the shield of being a social worker and/or union leader he was giving threat of strike to the factory owners and was thereby knocking out money from them and was also knocking out money from the people by giving temptation to give huts and residential accommodation. 4a. It is also alleged that for the purpose of doing such violent activities the petitioner was possessing lethal weapons like iron rods, dharia, knife, etc. It is also alleged that petitioner was carrying out such activities in areas like surat City, Udhna-Bhestan Road, Premnagar Jupadpatti, B. R. C. Gate, Udhna- siddharthnagar Jupadpatti, Bhedwad, Udhnagam Char Rasta, Udhna Bhedwad dargah Jupadpatti, Udhna Mahatma Gandhi Road, Udhna Road No. 8, Pandesra housing Board, Udhna Road No. 12, Sardar Market Jupadpati, Varachha Road, jupadpatti near Bombay Market, and Jupadpatti near I. C. Gandhi School. 4b. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was a head-strong and fanatic person and on account of his fear people are not coming forward for filing complaint. Certain persons have also given statements on condition to keep their names and addresses secret and the said statements support the allegations made in the said notice. It was also pointed out that petitioner was detained under the PASA Act in the year 1987 and that he was doing such criminal activities since 1986, and that even after he was released from detention under the PASA Act there was no change in his criminal activities. Accordingly, it was proposed to extern him for a period of two years from the areas under the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner, Surat as also from Surat and Valsad Districts. ( 5 ) THE petitioner had given reply to the said show cause notice and he had also examined certain witnesses. After carefully considering the reply as also the evidence the externing authority believed the allegations made in the notice, but instead of passing order of externment he passed the aforesaid order. The matter was carried in appeal under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 24-10- 1990. Hence the petition. ( 6 ) MR. The matter was carried in appeal under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 24-10- 1990. Hence the petition. ( 6 ) MR. N. N. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the externing authority has no power or authority to pass order for keeping good behaviour and for that purpose for directing him to give surety bond and/or personal bond; that notice issued under Sec. 59 of the bombay Police Act is vague and illegal and therefore, order based thereon is equally bad and illegal; that mentioning in the impugned order that the authority believes the allegations made in the notice to be true is the result of non-application of mind and therefore, also the order is bad and that the order passed by the appellate authority is bad on account of total non-application of mind inasmuch as it refers to offences under Chapter XII of the C. P. C. while in fact no such allegation is made either in the notice or in the order passed by the externing authority. ( 7 ) DEALING with the last point first it is clear that the appellate authority in the order has referred to the offences under Chapter XII of the I. P. C. while in fact no such allegation is made either in the notice or in the order passed by the externing authority. This clearly discloses that the appellate authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case. It appears that the order is passed on the format with little changes. It is clear from the first paragraph of the order (Annexure d to the petition) that the words "order of externment" (n vthltu nwfb) have been substituted by the words "order for taking surety bond" (bel jujt ykdu. ). If the appellate authority has applied its mind at least there would not have been any reference to offence under Chapter XII of the I. P. C. in the order. This clearly indicates the non-application of mind on the part of the appellate authority. In that view of the matter order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the matter does not rest here because Mr. This clearly indicates the non-application of mind on the part of the appellate authority. In that view of the matter order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the matter does not rest here because Mr. N. N. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the externing authority on the aforesaid grounds. ( 9 ) ON perusal of language of Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act it is clear that even when the necessary ingredients of Sec. 56 (a) (b) and (c) are complied with, i. e. , the externing authority is satisfied even so the externing authority has power to direct proposed externee 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 the jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto. The bare reading of Sec. 56 makes it clear that the externing authority has power to pass such order directing the proposed externee to conduct himself. Therefore, the power under Sec. 56 would certainly include the power of directing the proposed externee to keep good behaviour and not to indulge in commission of any offence during the period of two years and for that purpose can direct him to execute surety bond. On the contrary, this indicates that the externing authority though initiated the proceeding under Sec. 56 by issuing notice under Sec. 59 has discretely exercised powers and directed the petitioner to execute a surety bond for the purpose of keeping good behaviour and not to indulge in criminal activities for a period of two years instead of externing him. Hardly we come across such cases where the externing authority has exercised discretion. We really appreciate the keen sense of the externing authority in passing an order of this kind so as to see that liberty of the citizen is in no way curtailed which otherwise by the externment order would stand curtailed to some extent. Before passing the order for keeping good behaviour the authority has also given reason that said order is passed instead of externment for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to improve. Before passing the order for keeping good behaviour the authority has also given reason that said order is passed instead of externment for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to improve. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter we do not find any merit in the contention that the externing authority has no power or authority to pass such order for keeping good behaviour and not to indulge in criminal activities for a period of two years. ( 11 ) THE next contention to be dealt with is regarding the validity of the notice. The very object of giving notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay police Act is to give an opportunity for showing cause as to why a person should not be externed. Said notice is for the purpose of externment under sec. 56 (a) of the Act. So far as the allegations made in the first part of the notice are concerned, they are in respect of offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of the I. P. C. and there is no and there cannot be any dispute on that point. What is contended by Mr. Gandhi is that language of Sec. 56 (b) requires that there must be reasonable doubt that he is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence, and therefore it talks about present as well as future activities, but does not talk about past activities. ( 12 ) SO far as the said contention is concerned, it may be stated that intention of the Legislature in enacting the Sec. 56 of the Act is to be considered. It is a preventive remedy and not a punitive one. On perusal of Secs. 56 (a) (b) and (c) and particularly clause (b) thereof, it is clear that it deals with activities in which person is engaged. Looking to the language of the said Section it appears that it is in present tense and that there must be reasonable evidence for believing that such person is engaged in criminal activities like offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the I. P. C. or abetment thereof. Section talks about reasonable ground for believing that such person is about to be engaged in the commission of offence. Section talks about reasonable ground for believing that such person is about to be engaged in the commission of offence. Therefore, when the said provisions are to be implemented it can be done provided there is some objective material for the satisfaction of the externing authority to satisfy himself that such a person is about to be engaged in criminal activities. When an inference is to be drawn with regard to future activities it should always be based on some activities and therefore, it should be based on the present as well as past activities of the person which may not include activitie of remote past. When that is so, when an inference is to be drawn about future activities, past activities of the person must be considered; otherwise that part of the section can never be implemented. ( 13 ) IN the present case also the externing authority has relied on three cases out of which C. R. No. 106 of 1990 was registered on 6-5-1990 while the notice was issued on 26-5-1990. The other case being C. R. No. 5 of 1989 was registered on 18-4-1989, i. e. , or recent past. Thus, the activities of the petitioner have been properly considered by the externing authority. When the notice contains allegations with regard to present as also past activities of the petitioner and when an opportunity was given for explaining the same by issuing notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act, it cannot be said that the notice is illegal or invalid in any manner. The notice also shows the time and place where such activities are carried out by the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention regarding validity of the notice. ( 14 ) IT is also contended by Mr. Gandhi that the order passed by the externing authority is bad and illegal in view of the fact that it has come to the conclusion that it believes the allegations made in the notice to be true but instead of externing the petitioner it passes order for keeping good behaviour and for executing a bond for the same purpose. Mr. Gandhi in this regard has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Magan Patel v. H. R. Ghelot, Commissioner of Police, Surat and anr. , reported in [1988 (1)] XXIX (1) GLR 361. Mr. Gandhi in this regard has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Magan Patel v. H. R. Ghelot, Commissioner of Police, Surat and anr. , reported in [1988 (1)] XXIX (1) GLR 361. Apart from the facts of the said case the ratio laid down in the said judgment is that when the externing authority has mechanically applied its mind taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous facts in forming its subjective satisfaction for the purpose of externing the petitioner, the externment order would be bad and illegal. It is clearly held in para 8 of the said judgment that the order of externment, on the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be sustained. If Mr. Gandhi establishes that there is non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority in any manner, said authority would be applicable. In the said case nine prohibition cases were considered which according to the externing authority were pending before the Court. It was pointed out in the said case that out of the said nine cases, as a matter of fact, five have ended in acquittal and that the externing authority need not take into consideration the prohibition cases when they are considered for externment of a person under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act and therefore, this irrelevant and extraneous material was considered. It was therefore, held in the said case that order of externment is bad and illegal. 14a. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it may be stated that all the three cases referred to are in respect of offences under Chapter XVI of the I. P. C. and therefore, they cannot be said to be irrelevant in any manner whatsoever. Similarly, on perusal of the conduct of the petitioner mentioned in paras 2 to 5 coupled with the particulars given in paras 6 and 7 of the notice, it cannot be said that they are in any way irrelevant for the purpose of externment under Sec. 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act. When that is so, the aforesaid authority is not useful in the present case. ( 15 ) IT may be stated that one facet of the argument of Mr. When that is so, the aforesaid authority is not useful in the present case. ( 15 ) IT may be stated that one facet of the argument of Mr. Gandhi is that notice under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act was for the purpose of externment while the order passed is for keeping good behaviour and for executing a surety bond therefor. It may be mentioned that so far as direction to the petitioner to keep good behaviour without engaging himself in any of the criminal activities and for that purpose to execute a surety bond is concerned, it is comparatively much lighter than the order of externment. It is an established principle of law that when notice for higher punishment is given lighter punishment can always be awarded. When showcause notice for externment was issued certainly lighter punishment of entering into a surety bond for keeping good behaviour can be awarded. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this argument of Mr. Gandhi. ( 16 ) MR. Gandhi has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajput Karansinh Gagji v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, [1988 (2)] xxix (2) GLR 1402. In the said case, though the notice contained allegations with regard to commission of offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of i. P. C. , unfortunately, the externment under show-cause notice refers to the offences committed by the petitioners as coming under Chapters XVI and xvii. In the said case, looking to the specific allegations there were allegation with regard to offences under Chapters XVI and XVII, but there was absolutely no material to show that such an offence has been committed by the petitioner. It was, therefore, held in the said case that entire order is to be quashed. In the present case there are allegations with regard to commission of offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I. P. C. In the show-cause notice dated 22-5-1990 the externing authority has also considered and held the allegations made in the show-cause notice proved. Therefore, the externing authority has not committed any error in coming to that conclusion. So, there is no question of non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority. However, with regard to the order passed by the appellate authority as there was some mistake of the kind mentioned above, said order deserves to be quashed. Therefore, the externing authority has not committed any error in coming to that conclusion. So, there is no question of non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority. However, with regard to the order passed by the appellate authority as there was some mistake of the kind mentioned above, said order deserves to be quashed. The fact that the externing authority instead of passing the order of externment has passed an order directing the petitioner to keep good behaviour and to execute a personal bond for that purpose, itself indicates that the externing authority has fully applied its mind to the facts of the case and has passed the said order in spite of the fact that there were as many as 15 witnesses who had given their statements for the purpose of supporting the allegations made in the notice. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the externing authority is not in any way erroneous or illegal as it is the result of subjective satisfaction based on the proper materials, though the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained on the ground that offences under Chapter XII of the Indian penal Code are referred to in the appellate authoritys order. ( 17 ) UNDER the circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the externing authority is quite legal and proper and this Court would not like to interfere with the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 18 ) IN result, the petition stands partly allowed. The order passed by the appellate authority on 24-10-1990 is hereby quashed keeping intact the order passed by the externing authority on 6-9-1990. Accordingly rule is discharged so far as the order of the externing authority is concerned. Interim order stands vacated. .