P.S. Shah, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners has challenged the order of externment dated May 5, 1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Kalyan, against him under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner under section 59 of the Act is totally devoid of any particulars of the nature of the allegations against him which has prevented the petitioner from tendering any explanation as contemplated by section 59 of the Act. Secondly, he submitted that though the prejudicial activities imputed to the petitioner are confined to Ulhasnagar area, by the externment order the petitioner has been externed from the area of Thane, Greater Bombay and Raighad Districts. He submitted that the area mentioned in the order shows total non application of mind as there is no reason whatsoever for including that area of Raighad District.
2. We are inclined to accept the first contention urged by Mr. Chitnis and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the second contention urged by him. The notice under section 59 served on him merely states---
'1. That since 1977 in the locality known as Ulhasnagar and areas adjoining there your acts and movements are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, harm and is danger to the residents and shop keepers of the locality of those areas, in that:
(a) That since 1977 in that locality or those areas, your are engaged in the commission of offences of robberies by extorting money at the point of knife, which offences fall under Chapters XXVI & XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
(b) That since 1977 you are engaged in the commission of offence of assaults on residents and/or shop-keepers of that locality or those areas which offence falls under Chapter XVI & XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
(c) That since 1977 you have committed several acts and offences mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.'
3. Section 59 contemplates that before passing an order of externment under section 56 the person against whom such action is proposed to be taken must be informed in writing of the general nature of the material allegation against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. The above-mentioned allegations, to say the least, are blissfully vague. There is not a barest indication of the material against the petitioner to enable him to exercise his right of tendering an explanation. It is true that the notice under section 59 need not disclose the names of the victims or the witnesses; otherwise the very purpose for which the preventive action is contemplated under the Act might be frustrated. However, the authority is bound to disclose the general nature of the material against the person concerned. All that is mentioned in the notice is that since 1977 the petitioner has been indulging in certain criminal acts. The notice does not mention either the month or the year in which the incident took place nor does it even remotely indicate the particular locality and the nature of the particular incident intended to be used against the petitioner. Section 59 confers valuable rights on the proposed externee. He has as a right to tender his explanation against the proposed action. The notice in this case is clearly bad for vagueness and further indicates a total lack of application of mind on the part of the authority. A valid notice under section 59 is a condition precedent for passing an order under section 56 of the Act. Since we are of the view that the notice is bad, the impugned order of externment is liable to be set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of May 5, 1984, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.