Externment proceedings: only general allegations are required, no speaking order is mandatory, and a wider area may be justified.

In externment proceedings, the notice need disclose only the general nature of the material allegations; it need not set out prosecution-style particulars, and a notice giving sufficient locality, conduct, and apprehended activity will satisfy fairness where the person can respond effectively. The authorities are not bound to issue speaking or reasoned orders in such proceedings, because detailed disclosure of evidence would undermine the statutory scheme and witness protection. The externment area may also extend beyond the immediate scene of alleged activity where a wider contiguous area is reasonably necessary and not shown to be arbitrary or disproportionate. On these principles, the externment challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the externment notice was vague for want of particulars and therefore denied the proposed externee a reasonable opportunity of defence; (ii) Whether the externing authority and the appellate Government were bound to pass reasoned orders; (iii) Whether the externment order was excessive and unreasonable because it extended beyond the immediate area of alleged activity.

Issue (i): Whether the externment notice was vague for want of particulars and therefore denied the proposed externee a reasonable opportunity of defence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required disclosure only of the general nature of the material allegations. In externment proceedings, the object of the notice is not to disclose the kind of concrete particulars expected in an open prosecution, because that would defeat the purpose of the law and expose unwilling witnesses. The notice in question sufficiently indicated the localities, the nature of the alleged acts, and the class of apprehended conduct, and the proposed externee was able to answer it by explanation and evidence. The requirement of fairness was therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice was not vague and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the externing authority and the appellate Government were bound to pass reasoned orders.

Analysis: The obligation under the statute was limited to informing the proposed externee of the general nature of the allegations. A requirement that the authorities disclose detailed reasoning on the evidence would undermine the protection afforded to witnesses and defeat the scheme of externment. The appellate remedy does not convert such proceedings into a full adjudicatory trial requiring a judgment-like speaking order.

Conclusion: Neither authority was required to pass a reasoned order, and this contention failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the externment order was excessive and unreasonable because it extended beyond the immediate area of alleged activity.

Analysis: The width of externment depends on the circumstances, the data available to the authority, and the statutory limits. There is no rule that the order must be confined to the exact locality of the alleged misconduct. Where local conditions and mobility make a narrower order ineffective, extension to a larger contiguous area may be justified. In the facts found, Greater Bombay and Thana formed a sufficiently connected unit, and the order was not shown to be arbitrary or disproportionate.

Conclusion: The externment area was upheld as reasonable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the externment order failed on all substantial grounds, and the order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In externment proceedings, the person proceeded against is entitled only to the general nature of the material allegations, not to full particulars or a speaking order, and the extent of externment may validly extend to a wider contiguous area if reasonably necessary to make the order effective.

---