MUKHTIARUDDIN Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Districtserved a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, on the petitionerto show cause why he be not externed from the limits of the Union Territoryof Delhi for a period of 2 years, on the allegations that since 1975, he isengaged in the commission of illegal acts and offences against body, riot andbreach of peace which are causing or calculating to cause alarm, danger orharm to the persons or their property ; that he is involved in 5 cases under thevarious provisions of the Indian Penal Code; that his activities are greatmenace to the society at large ; and that he is so desperate and dangerouswhich renders his being at large in the Union Territory of Delhi or any partthereof hazardous to the community.

(2.) The petitioner sent the reply to the show cause notice denying theallegations. He also led evidence in support of his innocence and false implication in the cases mentioned in the said notice. Shri. A.K. Kanth, the thenDeputy Commissioner of Police, vide order dated 3.8.83, directed the petitionerto remove himself beyond the limits of the Union Tettitory of Delhi for aperiod of three months via Shahdara border. He was, however, permitted toattend courts at New Delhi/Delhi on all days of hearing of the cases pendingagainst him in the courts on the condition that on all days on conclusion ofhearing, he shall immediately remove himself outside the limits of UnionTerritory of Delhi and shall not visit any other place in Delhi except the courtpremises. The petitioner filed an appeal u/s 51 of the Delhi Police Act whichwas heard and rejected by the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 17.9.1983. Thesevery two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition seeking anappropriate direction or order for the quashing of the notice, the order of theDeputy Commissioner of Police and confirmed by the Lt Governor of Delhi.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in brief is thatthe authorities below went wrong in forming an opinion about the desperateand dangerous character of the petitioner, without there being any evidence insupport of the same inasmuch as he was discharged in four out of five casescited in the show cause notice. The last one is still subjudice. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the State is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police took into consideration the over all activities of the petitionerand rightly came to the conclusion that his continued presence in the UnionTerritory of Delhi would prove hazardous to the community. The impugnedorder which has become ineffective does not call for any interference.