USMAN ALIAS HAJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought the relief of issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing notice bearing No.584/R- Court DCP/C dated 18.2:92 issued by the respondent No.3, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Distt., Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The impugned notice, Annexure P- 3, is under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (for short the 'Act') requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The date of receiving explanation against the notice was fixed as 20.2.1992. The petitioner was in judicial custody when the notice was served on him and on the date fixed i.e. 20.2.1992 he was produced before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District in jail custody. This writ petition was filed on 21.2.1992, rule was issued on 8.5.92 and an interim order was passed on 27.5.92 to the effect that till the decision of this writ petition final order may not be passed by the respondents. The petition was finally heard on 12.7.95. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is still injudicial custody.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice on several grounds hut the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments challenged the impugned notice only on the following three grounds:

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the State has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds that soon after service of notice the petitioner was released from judicial custody and no prejudice could have been caused to him in furnishing his reply/explanation to the show cause notice; that the Additional Deputy Commissioner who issued the impugned notice was duly empowered to issue the notice under delgation orders dated 6.10.1978 and 28.2.1979 passed by Shri J.N. Chaturvedi, Commissioner of Police, Delhi and that it is still the stage of notice and whatever factual pleas the petitioner seeks to take in respect of the contents of the impugned notice he still has the opportunity to say so before the competent authroity under the Act. He further argued that due to stay operating in the matter in view of this court's order dated 27.5.1992 no final orders have yet been passed and the petitioner is at liberty to make all the submissions he may like to make before the competent authority. Further, he made a preliminary objection that this writ is not available because it is still at the stage of notice and no final orders have been passed and that even after passing of the final orders the statute provides for appeal under its section 51 and, therefore, unless the petitioner exhausts all his remedies under the Statute his writ petition challenging the notice under Section 50 of the Act should not be entertained.