JUDGMENT MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. :- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of externment passed by respondent no. 2 dated 16th March, 2012 and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority/respondent no. 1 confirming the said order. 3. The order of externment is defended by the respondents by filing affidavit of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Pune City. The petitioner is involved in criminal activities and five criminal cases under the offences punishable under sections 323, 336, 326, 452, 504, 506(ii) are registered against him and pending in the Court. Therefore, the notice under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was given to him disclosing allegations and nature of the offences in various cases. It was also mentioned that the witnesses are not coming forward due to fear and terror. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner based his submissions mainly on two points. Firstly, though the notice of externment was issued under section 56(1)(b), while passing order under the said section, the externing authority, in fact, has passed order taking into account the ingredients under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Hence, the order is illegal. Secondly, it is necessary for the authority to mention the names of the witnesses who are against the externee. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Chhotu Siddinath Kunwar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1989 Mh. L.J. 1021 and in Ayub Yusuf Mansuri vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nandurbar, 1986 (1) Bom. C.R. 144. 5. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 confers special powers to the Police of removal of persons who are about to commit offence. The power contains wide controlling force over the liberty of an individual. Section 56 is a long descriptive section which categorizes different types of criminality and their threat perceptions to the public at large. Section 56(1) is sub-divided into 1(a), 1(b), (bb), 1(c), thus sub-sections though look alike still distinct. The action taken under this Section has direct impact on the fundamental right, i.e., the liberty of an individual due to his removal from a particular locality. Naturally, the action should precede prior notice and fair opportunity of defence to the proposed externee. Section 56(1) is sub-divided into 1(a), 1(b), (bb), 1(c), thus sub-sections though look alike still distinct. The action taken under this Section has direct impact on the fundamental right, i.e., the liberty of an individual due to his removal from a particular locality. Naturally, the action should precede prior notice and fair opportunity of defence to the proposed externee. Therefore, a specification of a category in the notice is a tacit requirement of a lawful procedure enabling the proposed externee to understand the allegations made against him and the charges which he has to meet in the enquiry. A clear information of charges and fair opportunity of defence are foundations of the fair enquiry or trial, consistent with the principles of natural justice. In the case of Chhotu Siddinath Kunwar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has laid down similar ratio and it is further held that there must be material before the officer to show that the movement or act of such proposed externee is causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Section 56(1)(a) incorporates the terminology as alarm, danger and harm, however, it is not a requirement of sub-section 56(1)(b). 6. It will be useful to reproduce Section 56(1)(b) for comparison: "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 Chapters XII, XVI, XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 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." 7. On the background of this legal position, let us advert to the order of externment passed against the petitioner. Though the authority has quoted 'Order is passed under section 56(1)(b), the officer has stated that the acts of the externee/petitioner are causing or calculate to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, so it is within the purport of Section 56(1)(a) and not of Section 56(1)(b). Though the authority has quoted 'Order is passed under section 56(1)(b), the officer has stated that the acts of the externee/petitioner are causing or calculate to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, so it is within the purport of Section 56(1)(a) and not of Section 56(1)(b). Therefore, if the respondent no.2 is of the view that there is alarm, danger or harm to the person or property due to the activities of the externee/petitioner, then it was necessary for the authority to give notice accordingly. The notice, in fact, is given under section 56(1)(b) and the order is captioned as passed under section 56(1) (b), however, in the body of the order, the externing authority has considered the ingredients of Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is valid and with substance. We are of the view that the order, therefore, is vitiated and is to be set aside. 8. We, accordingly, allow this Writ Petition and quash and set aside the order of externment dated 16th March, 2012 and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority/respondent no. 1 confirming the said order. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.