JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA. J.:---Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of externment order dated 12-11-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 13-11-2000 passed in appeal by the respondent No. 1. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has made following submissions:- (i) Show Cause Notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act") is vague; (ii) Order of externment has been passed under section 56(1)(a) but the authority has considered the ingredients as section 56(1)(b) as well of the Act; (iii) The externment order is cryptic, non-speaking and has been passed without application of mind; (iv) The stand of the petitioner as also certificates and evidence produced by him has not been considered ; (v) The authority concerned has considered extraneous material as can be seen from reply to Ground (I) filed by the respondent No. 2; and (vi) The secret complaints are stereo type and have not been verified by the competent authority and the same could not have been taken into consideration. 4. I shall deal with the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner one by one with reference to the material on record and the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. 5. The first point urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice is vague since it does not give necessary details which are required in order to effectively represent to the authority. In this respect reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court i.e. (Bhausaheb Jagannath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, reported in 1995(2) Bom.C.R. 383 and (Namdeo Laxman Charde v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and another)2, Criminal Writ Petition No. 226 of 1995. In these authorities, it was found that the notice did not state the locality, area or period during which notice had allegedly conducted himself in such manner as to create danger or alarm to person or property. After going notice issued under section 59 of the Act, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. After going notice issued under section 59 of the Act, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has stated that necessary and relevant details have been given in the Show Cause Notice and the Show Cause Notice can by no stretch of imagination be said to be vague. In this notice, three offences committed by the petitioner have been listed and four in-cameras statements have been relied upon. The petitioner does not dispute that three criminal cases have been registered against and his contention is that he has been falsely implicated in the said cases. The details of crime numbers, provisions of law, substances of criminal act as also the jurisdiction in which the same have been committed that is to say Azad Nagar are recorded in the notice. Besides this, the petitioner has himself admitted that the said three cases have been filed against him. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have effective opportunity to make representation due to lack of details of the said crimes. In so far as in-cameras statements are concerned, obviously, the identity and location cannot be disclosed as the same would result in drying up of the sources of information and people will not come forward to report of criminal behaviour of the concerned person. In view of this, the first contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is rejected. 6. The second contention of the learned Advocate for the petition is that the order of externment has been issued under section 56(1)(a) of the said Act but ingredients of section 56(1)(b) have also been considered. In this respect, learned A.P.P. has urged that though the title of the order refers only to section 56(1)(a) yet in substance it is an order under section 56(1)(a) and (b). The contention of the learned A.P.P. is well founded. What is relevant is the substance and the externment order in substance has been made under section 56(1)(a) and (b). Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is rejected. 7. The contention of the learned A.P.P. is well founded. What is relevant is the substance and the externment order in substance has been made under section 56(1)(a) and (b). Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is rejected. 7. The third contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the externment order in question is cryptic, non speaking and without application of mind and that it does not refer to the satisfaction of the concerned authority in this connection, reliance has been placed on (Abdul Kadir Razzaque Beg v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and others)3, reported in 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 589 , wherein it is laid down that though detailed reasons are not required to be recorded yet the authority would not be justified in merely reproducing the ingredients of the section and prefixing it with the clause "I am satisfied that". The order in substance refers to the material which has been taken into consideration on the basis of which satisfaction has been arrived at and as such I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 8. The fourth contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the stand of the petitioner, certificates as also evidence produced by the petitioner has not been considered. In this case, enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has considered all these aspects. The corporators whose certificates were filed by the petitioner, have not been examined and the other witnesses have stated that they are not aware of the criminal activities of the petitioner. The order also states that the explanation given by the petitioner has been considered. Hence there is no merit in this submission as well. 9. The fifth submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority has considered extraneous material and in support of this contention. Reliance has been placed on Ground (1) of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 and the Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on (Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar v. State of Maharashtra and another)4, Criminal Writ Petition No. 230 of 1996. In that case, it was found that the crimes which were taken into consideration had not been referred to in the notice which were taken into consideration while passing externment order. In that case, it was found that the crimes which were taken into consideration had not been referred to in the notice which were taken into consideration while passing externment order. The authority while passing the order on 12-11-1999 also relied on (Shri Narayan Motiram Khilnani v. The State of Maharashtra)5, reported in 1986(1) Bom.C.R. 122 , where the Deputy Commissioner of Police had considered the subsequent activities of the accused wherein he had indulged in similar type of cases, but none of such cases has been referred to in the Show Cause Notice and as such it was held that such consideration which is not subject matter of show cause notice could not be relied while passing final order of externment. In the case under consideration, the detention order was passed on 12-11-1999. What has referred in Ground (1) of reply filed by the respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner has continued the criminal activities and therein the instances after passing of the externment order has been quoted, namely, Crime No. 129/2000 and Crime No. 395/2000. Obviously these crimes have not been taken into consideration by the authority. 10. The last contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that secret complaints are stereo type and the same cannot be taken into consideration. It is also urged that the said complaints have not been verified and there is nothing to show that the authority has been satisfied about the truthfulness of the said statements. In this connection, reliance has been placed on (Vijaya Raju Gupta v. R.H. Mendonca and others)6, reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 24. In this respect, learned A.P.P. has urged that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has conducted detailed enquiry into the matter and had submitted the report. It is only after the satisfaction about the truthfulness of the material on record that the externment order was passed. The in-cameras statements refer to four incidents which are stated to have taken place in the month of August 1999 and three crimes which have been taken into consideration against the petitioner are for the period from April 1999 to June 1999. There is thus chain of criminal activities indulged into by the petitioner from April 1999 to August 1999. The in-cameras statements refer to four incidents which are stated to have taken place in the month of August 1999 and three crimes which have been taken into consideration against the petitioner are for the period from April 1999 to June 1999. There is thus chain of criminal activities indulged into by the petitioner from April 1999 to August 1999. It is only after conducting enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that he had arrived at the satisfaction about the material against the petitioner in Vijaya Raju Gupta v. R.H. Mendonca and others (cited supra) neither in detention order nor in ground of detention, the Detaining Authority had stated anything about the satisfaction about truthfulness of the statements made in in-camera statement. The detention order as well as externment order before me shows in substance that the authority concerned had arrived at the requisite satisfaction not only while issuing show cause but also while passing the externment order. The activities of the petitioner are such that the same fall within the ambit of section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act and as such, I am of the opinion that the externment order is not required to be quashed as sought by the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby rejected. Writ petition rejected. -----