( 1 ) THIS revision-petition is filed by the petitioner-Mohammed Javeed Agha under S. 397 r/w S. 401 of Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dated 13-6-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, bangalore in Crime No. (4)/externment/8/06 vide Annexure-C. ( 2 ) ASSAILING the same the petitioner has come up with this revision-petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order Annexure-C is highly arbitrary and ultra vires. The district Magistrate failed to consider the case in its proper perspective, thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order passed is only on the basis of the police report and no other documents like statement of witnesses etc. , to arrive at a conclusion of externment of the petitioner for a period of one year. The respondent has failed to examine the witnesses in support of its report, to prove that the petitioner was involved in the alleged activities which caused respondent to pass the impugned order Annexure-C under s. 55 (b) of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the provisions of S. 55 (b) of the Act are not at all applicable. The order under challenge is in violation of s. 55 (b) of the said Act, as it is not the case that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public which is necessary with regard to a person's involvement in committing offence involving force, violence etc. Though show cause notice issued by the respondent gives some other reasons, but the impugned order passed is without informing about the alleged involvement of this revision-petitioner in connection with assault of Hyder asgar and the explanation/reply submitted to the show cause notice by the revision-petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. No witnesses were examined. Since he is a businessmen, in this regard the petitioner also produced letters dated 11-5-2006 issued by his business associates as per Annexures-D, D-1 and D-2. Even then the District Magistrate has wrongly come to the conclusion and has passed the impugned order Annexure-C. Moreover the petitioner is having aged parents, two small school going children and also his wife is pregnant, his presence is very much required for the children so also his parents and wife being pregnant. Even then the District Magistrate has wrongly come to the conclusion and has passed the impugned order Annexure-C. Moreover the petitioner is having aged parents, two small school going children and also his wife is pregnant, his presence is very much required for the children so also his parents and wife being pregnant. The Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate-respondent without issuing show cause notice about the alleged involvement of this revision-petitioner in Hyder Asgar's case, passed the impugned order which is bad in law, illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence this revision-petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and learned State public Prosecutor Sri Dore Raju for the respondent and perused the records. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the impugned order under challenge passed by the Commissioner of police and District Magistrate is a clear violation of S. 55 (b) of the Act? (2) Whether the impugned order Annexure-C passed by the respondent other than the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice at Annexure-A to extern him from the Bangalore Urban district is bad in law? ( 5 ) THE petitioner herein has been arraigned as an accused in several criminal cases registered against him in between 1995 i. e. , S. C. No. 560/95, S. C. No. 9/95, S. C. No. 529/2000, s. C. No. 153/99, C. C. No. 18455/99 and C. C. No. 24323/98. The Commercial Street Police registered a case in Crime No. 154/04 for the offence punishable under Ss. 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in C. C. No. 24787/04, which is still pending and the other case registered in Crime No. 36/05 for the offence punishable under Ss. 386 and 506 (b) r/w S. 34, I. P. C. the petitioner was arrested subsequently and he was released on bail and investigation is still pending. So as on today the charge-sheet came to be filed against the revision-petitioner by Commercial Street police Station which is pending on the file of the 11th Addl. ACM, Bangalore in C. C. No. 24787/04 and another case is still under investigation. So as on today the charge-sheet came to be filed against the revision-petitioner by Commercial Street police Station which is pending on the file of the 11th Addl. ACM, Bangalore in C. C. No. 24787/04 and another case is still under investigation. So during pendency of the investigation of the case in crime No. 154/04 filed by the Commercial Street Police Station and another case, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Of course no prior notice was issued about the involvement of the revision-petitioner in Hyder Asgar's case. In order to take revenge against the murder of petitioner's Guru Chappal Hameed and Rizwan Being alias Moulana, the impugned order has been passed. ( 6 ) DURING the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the annexure-A is a show cause notice issued to the revision-petitioner does not contain the allegations made in the show cause notice in order to pass the impugned order under challenge except externment of revision-petitioner from Bangalore City. There is no material placed on record to show that the involvement of the revision-petitioner instigating the accused persons in Crime No. 354/05 of Commercial Street police Station. To that effect the petitioner has produced Annexure-E-2 charge-sheet filed against 12 accused persons but his name is not shown as accused that at his instigation the other accused persons attempted to commit murder of the complainant C. W. 1. Even the prosecution papers shows that the statement of witnesses does not disclose that at the instigation of this revision-petitioner, accused persons in that case made an attempt to commit the murder of complainant. So, in the absence of materials and non-mentioning the name of the revision-petitioner in the alleged involvement, the complaint filed by Asgar against other accused persons and passing of such an order by violating the principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed. The show cause notice does not disclose about the involvement of this revision-petitioner. Merely because in the earlier cases filed against the revision-petitioner and other accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not supported their case does not mean that the revision-petitioner has threatened those witnesses and consequently those cases ended in acquittal is not a ground. Merely because in the earlier cases filed against the revision-petitioner and other accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have not supported their case does not mean that the revision-petitioner has threatened those witnesses and consequently those cases ended in acquittal is not a ground. In this behalf counsel for the revision-petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Basappa ghaviyappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1976 (2) KLJ 329, wherein, this Court held that : "section 58 says that the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is to be passed should be of a general nature. But at the same time, it should not be too general or vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is levelled against them. The test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the persons is proper or not is, whether the information is of such a character as to enable them to give an explanation. " ( 7 ) BUT the earlier show cause notice An-nexure-A does not contain any allegation against this revision-petitioner. In the complaint against 12 accused persons subsequently investigation has been done and charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore Annexure-C which is under challenge is to be quashed on the ground that so called show cause notice does not contain the name of the petitioner for which he has been externed. He also relied on another decision in the case of ambadas V. State of Karnataka, reported in ilr 1987 Kar 1481 : (1988 Cri LJ 246), where in is has been held that : "although as provided under S. 59 of the act a remedy of appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under S. 55 of the Act and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of s. 59 together with S. 60 of the Act. it would appear that there is no bar against the Court interfering with such order of externment in the circumstances as enumerated in S. 60 of the Act.-(1) where the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of S. 58 is not followed; (2) there is no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have been based its order; and (3) the authority making the order is not of the opinion that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the persons in respect of whom an order is made under S. 55. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must. " ( 8 ) SO in the instant case, the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate-respondent herein has not recorded or received any statements from the competent police officer who has submitted his report. Unless the opinion has been recorded, the order of externment passed against the revision-petitioner is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another decision of Bombay high Court in the case of Smt. Khairunisa mohamed Suleman Sayyed v. Sub-Divisional magistrate, Miraj, reported in 1987 (1) Bom cr 427, wherein it has been held : "bombay Police Act, 1951, S. 56 (a) (b) -Order of externment - Validity - Order passed on material which not disclosed in show cause notice - Order liable to be set aside. It is well settled that if in the show cause notice no opportunity is given to the externee to explain the offences, which are relied upon in the final order of externment then the order of externment must stand vitiated. " ( 10 ) ON the other hand the learned State public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate has rightly passed the Annex-ure-C against the revision-petitioner after considering the involvement of this petitioner in several criminal cases. It is argued that the petitioner was acquitted in several cases on account of the threat given to the prosecution witnesses and nobody is prepared to come forward to give evidence against him and his associates. Several rowdy sheets have been opened in some police station. It is argued that the petitioner was acquitted in several cases on account of the threat given to the prosecution witnesses and nobody is prepared to come forward to give evidence against him and his associates. Several rowdy sheets have been opened in some police station. Since the revision-petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and he is threatening several persons and, therefore, respondent is right in passing the Annexure-C. It is submitted that there are no incorrect or illegal findings recorded by the respondent and, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the revision-petition. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in the instant case, the show cause notice issued by the respondent does not disclose the allegations if any made in complaint filed by complainant against this revision-petitioner. In fact the charge-sheet is filed other than revision-petitioner by the investigating agency. The District Magistrate who passed the order at Annexure-C only on the basis of alleged sources other than the report received by him. Merely because he was involved in some criminal cases in between 1995 to 1999 and 2000, one case is under investigation and in another case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent jurisdictional magistrate does not mean that the revision-petitioner instigating the other persons to involve to commit the offences. The show cause notice Annexure-A does not contain the allegations if any made against the revision-petitioner by the complainant in Crime No. 354 and in C. C. No. 24787/2004. Mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing an order of externment. There must be clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to detriment of the fundamental freedoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of arts. 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the impugned order under challenge does not disclose that the author who passes the order has applied the test to avoid the abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, bangalore is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of karnataka Police Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, bangalore is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of karnataka Police Act. ( 13 ) HENCE, the revision-petition is allowed and the impugned order under challenge passed by the Commissioner of Police and district Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.