JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The only point urged by Mr. S.A. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, who passed an externment order under section 56 (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") was not authorised and competent to do so under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the said Act. In this connection, Mr. Jaiswal submitted that no notification authorising the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, has been issued and published by the State Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247 of 1993, (Raju v. State of Maharashtra)1, in support of his contention. 2. Before I advert to the aforesaid contention, brief facts of the case may be noted. In view of the various criminal cases pending against the petitioner, a show cause notice under section 59(a) of the Act was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed under section 56 of the Act for two years from Nagpur, Nagpur Rural, Wardha, Bhandara and Yavatmal Districts. The petitioner filed a reply and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, on 10-8-1993 passed the following order. "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 56 of the said Act, I, Jawahar Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone II, Nagpur, hereby direct that Shri Afajalkhan s/o. Sulemankhan Pathan Musalman, aged 41 years, r/o. Gittikhadan, Azadnagar, P.S. Sadar, Nagpur, shall remove himself outside the limits of the following districts i.e. Nagpur City, Nagpur Rural, Wardha, Bhandara and Yavatmal by the following route i.e. by Howrah Bombay Railway route going towards Bombay within two days from the receipt of this order and he shall report about the place of his residence to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station in that district, once in every month. If the case pending against him in case he is convicted in the said case and is sent to the jail for undergoing any imprisonment he shall remove himself within two days from the date of this release from the jail and, I further direct that he shall not enter or return to the said areas for a period of two years from the date on which he removes himself or is removed outside the limits of Nagpur Police Commissionerate, Nagpur Rural, Wardha, Bhandara and Yavatmal Districts without the permission in writing from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone II, Nagpur or the Government of Maharashtra". 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, passed on 10-8-1993 externing the petitioner from the areas referred to therein the petitioner filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act before the Government of Maharashtra. No merit was found in the appeal by the Appellate Authority and the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 10-8-1993 was maintained. 4. Sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act reads as under : "10(2) Every such Deputy Commissioner shall, under the order of the Commissioner, exercise and perform any of the powers, functions and duties of the Commissioner to be exercised or performed by him under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force in accordance with the general or special orders of the State Government made in this behalf : Provided that the powers to be exercised by the Commissioner of making, altering or rescinding rules under section 33 shall not be exercised by a Deputy Commissioner". Section 56(1) of the Act provides as under : "56(1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas of which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the 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 of 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 regards the safety of their person or property, or (bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 or (c) that an out-break 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 such prejudicial act, or the outbreak or spread of such disease or notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether continguous or not), by such route, and within such time, as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (herein-after referred to as "the specified area or areas") from which he was directed to remove himself". 5. A look at sub-section (2) of section 10 would reveal that the Commissioner of Police may delegate his powers under the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Police in accordance with general or special order passed by the State Government issued in this behalf. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice the Ordinance to amend the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and to make certain validating provisions. The Ordinance was promulgated on 24th June, 1994 and published in the Official Gazette on the day. The said Ordinance called "the Bombay Police (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1994 having come into force provides in section 3 as under : "3. Validation and saving.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment decree or order of any Court,- (a) any order by a Commissioner, whether made or purporting to have been made, before the commencement of this Ordinance under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the principal Act empowering a Deputy Commissioner of Police to exercise his powers under sections 55, 56, 57 or 57-A of the principal Act or to exercise or perform his any other powers or functions or duties under any other provisions of the principal Act; or (b) any order passed making a direction under sections 55, 56, 57 or 57-A of the principal Act or any order passed or action taken under any other provisions of the principal Act, before the commencement of this Ordinance, by any Deputy Commissioner of Police so empowered under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the principal Act, shall be, and shall be deemed to be valid and effective as if such order or action had been duly made or passed or taken under the principal Act, as amended by this ordinance, in accordance with law; and no suit, appeal, application or other proceedings, shall lie or be maintained or continued in any Court or before any officer or other authority for declaring such empowerment or order or action as invalid or for claiming any damages whatsoever on the ground that such empowerment or order or action is without the authority of law". Section 3 of the aforesaid Ordinance validates with retrospective effect any order passed under section 56 of the Act or any order passed or action taken under any other provisions of the Act before commencement of the said Ordinance by any Deputy Commissioner of Police so empowered under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the principal Act.. 6. In view of the aforesaid ordinance, there is no merit in the only argument submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. Consequently, this writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. *****