Mr. Gambhirwalla laid stress upon the expression "that there was no material before the authority concerned'' and argued that the real question is whether there was material which could lead to the subjective satisfaction of the mind of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is sufficient if there is some material before the authority. Sufficiency of the material as an objective fact is not to be taken into account in considering the validity of the order passed under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In the abstract, this position seems to be correct. At the same time, in order to consider the question as to whether there is subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, we have necessarily to take into account whether the material is such as could lead to the subjective satisfaction. The expression "subjective satisfaction" does not refer to the whim or the caprice of the authority concerned. Satisfaction means the satisfaction of a reasonable man and it can be arrived at on the basis of some material which satisfies a rational mind. We know what was the material before the Deputy Commissioner of Police when he passed the externment order. That material merely consisted in the fact that a prosecution under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was pending against the accused. This material would not satisfy the mind of any reasonable person that there was ground for believing that the accused was likely to commit an offence of a similar character for which he was convicted in 1949.