CHANDER BHAN SONI Vs. ADMINISTRATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a request by the SHO Moti Nagar for extern" ment of the petitioner, a notice was issued on 31-7-1982 to the petitioner Chander Bhan Soni of Karampura under Sec. 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 that he was from 1972 to 1982 involved in several criminal cases in' eluding attempt to murder, robbery, theft, keeping and receiving stolen property, harbouring criminals, keeping of arms, etc. and his presence was hazardous to the community in the Union Territory of Delhi. His movement and acts were causing harm and danger to the persons and property. There were reasonable grounds for believing that he was engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Penal Code. A list of 38 such cases was also incorporated. It was further alleged in the notice that witnesses did not come forward to depose against him in public for fear of their persons and property. He was, therefore) directed to show cause why he should not be externed from the limits of the Union Territory for a period of two years.

(2.) On 14-10-1982 the Deputy Commissioner of Police made an order that Chander Bhan was given ample opportunity to defend himself but he failed to do so. Afterconsidering the evidence and material on record, the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied (1) that the petitioner was still er.gaged in the commission of offences, (2) that witnesses are not willing to come for ward to give evidence in the public against him, (3) that in the interest of Public, and (4) that in order to prevent breach of peace in Delhi) It Was necessary to extern him under Section 47 of the Police Act. He directed him to remove himself outside the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of one year and not to enter or return to the Union Territory for a period of one year from the date of his removal without his prior permission. It appears that the petitioner is at present lodged in Jail. He did not file an appeal under Section 51 of the Police Act and has now challenged the aforesaid order by means of this petition.

(3.) Though ordinarily the petitioner must exhaust the remedy of appeal, yet where the question of liberty is involved, the aggrieved person can move the court and be heard under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.