MUKAT BEHARI Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31-8-84, Shri S.K. Singh, the then Deputy Commssioner of Police, North District, Delhi served a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act 1978 on the petitioner, Shri Surinder Pal Snigh alias Pal, to show cause why an order of externment from the limits of Union Territory of Delhi be not passed against him on the following amongst other grounds :

(2.) Feeling aggrieved of the order of externment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor of Delhi. His appeal was rejected by order dated 31-3-86. It is against this order, the petitioner has preferred to file the writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 27-1-86 dassed by Shri S.K. Singh. the then Deputy Commissioner of police externing him from the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act and upheld by the learned Lt. Governor by order dated 31-3-86.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has altogether ignored the "explanation" appended to Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act which lays down that a person who during a period within one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this section has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this section shall be deemed to have been habitually committed that act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was involved only in one case in FIR No.l35ofl984 under Section 392/34/12-B.IPC Police Station, Narella, Delhi and, therefore, the requirements of the Section were not fulfilled and the order of externment could not have been passed. None of the other conditions mentioned in the show cause notice are applicable to the present petitioner and the impugned order in these circumstances are liable to be quahsed. Sodhi Teja Singh, learned counsel for the State tried to support the impugned orders by taking the plea that the case of the petitioner is not covered under Clause-C of Section 47 and as such the explanation is not attracted. His further submission is that the impugned orders were passed after due application of mind by the concerned authorities and their subjective satisfaction cannot be challenged in these proceedings.