VIJAY KUMAR Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment five writ petitions (Nos. 7, 8, 162, 176 and 177 of 1974) are being disposed of. In all these cases the question involved is as to whether the present Sub-Divisional Magistrates in Delhi can be regarded to have been specially empowered for purposes of sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. In three of the petitions the question regarding the extent of their jurisdiction for passing orders of externment under the said provisions was as well raised.

(2.) It is necessary to state certain facts. As it was proposed to take action against Suraj Pal alias Kau and Vijay Kumar under sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 as extended with certain modifications to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called "the Act"), Shri P. N. Gupta, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamla Market, issued notices under section 59 of the Act. Notice issued to Suraj Pal was dated November 24, 1973 and the notice given to Vijay Kumar was issued on November 26, 1973. By those notices they were informed the general nature of the material allegations against them and it was intimated to them that November 30, 1973 had been fixed for receiving their explanation and of hearing them and their witnesses, if any, regarding the allegations that their movements were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that they were engaged or about to engage in the commission of offences involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offences and that witnesses were not willing to come forward in evidence in public against them by reason of apprehensions on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.

(3.) Admittedly so far no final orders have been passed against Vijay Kumar and Suraj Pal and the proceedings are still pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had issued notices to them. In the petitions filed by them (Nos. 7 and 8) they have, therefore, prayed for quashing the notices dated the 24th and the 26th November, 1973 and the consequent proceedings. The main ground taken is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrates dealing with the cases under sections 56 and 57 of the Act cannot be regarded to be "specially empowered". It was also averred that after the separation of judiciary from executive in the Union Territory of Delhi no such proceedings could be started by Sub-Divisional Magistrates or any other Executive Magistrates. This latter plea was, however, given up at the time of arguments.