DHEERAJ Vs. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dheeraj Kumar has assailed the order of his externment passed by respondent under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act,1978 (hereinafter called the Act) for a period of six months. The order has been assailed, inter alia, on the, grounds that five cases were relied by the respondent in its notice under Section 50 of the Act and all of those cases were registered under the Excise Act. That as per the administrative instructions issued by the respondent a person could not be externed if he is involved in excise matters. Since the petitioner has been shown to be excise matters, the externment proceedings could not be initiated against him. Secondly the witnesses recorded in "camera" could not be used against him because no copy of that evidence was supplied to him. And finally he is neither desperate nor,dangerous nor his movements are hazardous to the public at large.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge raised in this petition the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is resident of Azad Gali, Badarpur, P.S. Welcome, Delhi. A report was received from SHO of Police Station Welcome indicating the criminal activities of the petitioner. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East District) after going through the report of the SHO issued show cause notice dated 25/01/2000 to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Act indicating the summary of allegations. In response to that show cause notice petitioner appeared before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police on 17/02/2001. Contents of the notice were explained to him. He after understanding the contents of the notice furnished the bail bond. He was asked to file reply in response to the show cause notice under Section 50 of the Act. On 9/03/2000 he submitted his reply to the notice. He was asked to produce defence witnesses, if any, but he failed to do so despite number of opportunities having been afforded to him. Thereafter on the basis of the material available on record, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the impugned order under Section 47 of the Act, dated 5/02/2001 thereby ordering the externment of the petitioner beyond the limit of North East District, Delhi for a period of six months w.e.f. 7/02/2001. He was further directed not to enter or return to area of North East District, Delhi within the said period without written permission of the competent authority. He was, however, permitted to attend the court at North East District, Delhi on all dates of hearing and thereafter would remove himself outside the limits of North East District. He was further directed not to visit any other place except the Court premises and the relaxation was given only for the date of hearing in the Court for coming and going out of the limits of the North East District, Delhi. Order was duly explained to him and he was informed that he had a right to file appeal against the said order.

(3.) Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 51 of the Act before the Lt.Governor of Delhi. By an order dated 7/03/2001, the Lt.Governor of Delhi, Appellate Authority, dismissed his appeal. Appellate Authority found no infirmity in the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police.