Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) In these criminal appeals, by special leave, the State of Gujarat and its officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch Ahmedabad City, challenge the orders dated April, 8. 1965, passed by the Gujarat High Court, in Special Criminal Applications Nos. 3 and 8 of 1965 quashing the orders of externment passed against the respective respondents under S. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom. Act XXII of 1951) , (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1965 is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No 3 of 1965, and Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1965, is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No. 8 of 1965.
(2.) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City, served a notice, dated August 13, 1964, on the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1985, under S. 59 read with S. 56 of the Act, in the following terms: "Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act (Bom. Act XXII of 1951) you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you in a proceeding under Section 56 of the said Act, and it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana and you should not enter or return to the said Districts for a period of two years from the date of order proposed to be passed against you under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. You are also informed that I have been empowered by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Ahmedabad City under his No. P. C. B. dated 12th August 1964 to proceed according to Section 59 (1) of the said Act. In order to give you an opportunity of tendering your explanation regarding the said allegations, I have appointed 11.00 hours on 21st August 1964 to receive your explanation and to hear you and your witnesses, if any, in regard to the said allegations and hence require you to appear before me at my office situated in old Nurses Hostel, Patharkuva, Relief Road, Ahmedabad City on the said date and time for the said purpose and to pass a bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- with one surety in like amount for your attendance during the enquiry of the said proceedings. In case you fail to appear on the due date an ex parte hearing and decision wild be taken, that is, the inquiry will proceed against you in normal manner and decision will be taken in your absence. TAKE NOTE:- ALLEGATIONS:- It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violence. You terrorise the residents, of the localities known as Rentiawadi Halinkhadki and round about areas under Karanj and Madhavpura Police Stations. Since the month of November 1963 till today you are engaged in the commission of the following offence in the above localities:- 1. You way-lay, rob and extort money from the persons at the point of knife and under threats of violence; 2. You demand money from the persons and on their refusal to pay you beat them ;- 3. You consume eatables from the place of public entertainment without payment and when legal dues are demanded you beat the person; You are engaged in several acts as mentioned in paras (1) , (2) and (3) above and that the witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. It is proposed to extern you for a period of two years. It is also proposed to extern you out of the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana as you are likely to operate and indulge in your violent, activities from the contiguous Districts also through your associates and agents if not so externed." The said notice was served on the party on August 20, 1964. On the date, fixed for hearing i. e., August 21, 1964, the respondent Mehboob Khan appeared before the officer, and after making a preliminary statement, at his request, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time, for enabling him to file his written explanation and also a list of witnesses proposed to be examined by him. Ultimately, on November 9, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order, directing the said Mehboob Khan Usman Khan to remove himself, within two days of the service of the order, outside the district of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural. Kaira and Mehsana. The order of externment contains recitals that, after considering the evidence before him, and the explanation, furnished by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is satisfied that the respondent is a desperate and dangerous man, and is engaged in the commission of acts involving force or violence, and acts punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the Indian Penal Code, within the localities known as Rantiawadi, Halimkhadki and round about areas, and that there are reliable materials to prove the allegations, contained in paragraphs (1) , (2) and (3) , of the said order. Those allegations, it may be states are identical with the three offences, referred to, in the notice, dated August 13, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner further states that, in his opinion, 'the witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property'. Finally, the order concludes by reciting that in exercise of the powers, vested in the Deputy Commissioner, under S. 56 of the Act, he directs the respondent to remove himself outside the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana, within two days from the date of service of the order. The order also concludes, by saying that the respondent should not return to or re-enter the places mentioned therein, for a period of two years from the date of the order, without obtaining the permission, in writing, of the competent authority.
(3.) The respondent in Cr. A. 167/65 flied Special Criminal Application No. 3 of 1965, in the Gujarat High Court, under Arts. 226 and 227, of the Constitution, for quashing this order of externment, passed against him. The main ground, on which the order was challenged, appears to be that the notice, dated August 18, 1964, on which the subsequent order of externment is based, was too vague and general, both with regard to the time and places of his alleged activities, and that the allegations made, therein, were so general that he could not offer, effectively, any explanation, or substantiate his defence. In short, it was the grievance of the respondent that, in the notice, issued under S. 59, the material allegations, had not been set out, and therefore, there had been no proper compliance with the provisions of that section, so as to enable the Deputy Commissioner, to take action, under S. 56 of the Act. The respondent raised certain other objections, to the validity and legality of the order, one of which was that the order of externment, had not been passed, by the competent officer.;