Preventive externment notices are valid when they disclose the general allegations clearly enough to allow a reasonable reply.

A notice issued for externment under the Bombay Police Act is valid if it informs the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations and enables a reasonable explanation; it need not set out every detailed instance or piece of evidence. On that basis, notices referring to the relevant period, localities, and nature of the alleged acts were held sufficient, and the externment orders were not vitiated for vagueness. The existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge concerned the validity of the notices and the resulting externment orders. The challenge failed on merits, and the externment orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was invalid for vagueness because it stated only the general nature of the material allegations, and whether the externment orders passed under Section 56 of that Act were liable to be quashed on that ground; whether the availability of an appeal under Section 60 barred the writ petitions.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits externment under Section 56 after notice and hearing under Section 59, with an appeal provided under Section 60. The notice need not set out detailed particulars of evidence or every specific instance, but must inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations so that a reasonable explanation can be offered. The allegations in the notices referred to the period, the localities, and the nature of the acts alleged, and were sufficient to enable the respondents to meet the case against them. The Court also found no merit in the objection based on the existence of an appellate remedy, as the High Court had entertained the writ petitions and the question before it was the validity of the notices and consequent externment orders.

Conclusion: The notices under Section 59 were valid, the externment orders under Section 56 were not vitiated for vagueness, and the challenge based on alternative remedy failed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was set aside and the externment orders were restored, the challenge to the notices and orders having failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under a preventive externment provision is valid if it conveys the general nature of the material allegations and gives a reasonable opportunity to explain, without requiring exhaustive particulars of each incident.

---