GIYARSI RAM Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of a notice under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act dated nil calling upon 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 as also a history sheet opened against him consequent to which an entry was made in the survelliance register.

(2.) The notice under section 47/50, Delhi Police Act, was issued by Smt. Kiran Bedi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District. A number of grounds have been pressed in support of the challenge thrown to the impugned order. Smt. Kiran Bedi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, has submitted an affidavit in person. There is also an affidavit of the S.H.O. Police Station Subzi Mandi, on record. Broadly speaking, all the facts have been admitted. In my view, the whole controversy falls within a very narrow compass inasmuch as the basis for proceeding against the petitioner under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act, in fact, is F.I.R. No. 343 dated 11th of September 1986 under sections 12/9/55 of the Gambling Act. Earlier to this, as evidenced by the notice, which is undated, 22 cases have been cited mostly under the Gambling Act, Excise Act and quasi-executive provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The last case under section 107/151 is of 1973. In fact, the last F.I.R. is of 1968. Right from 1968 till 1986 the authorities concerned did not find it necessary to issue a notice under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act for externment of the petitioner as in all probability he was not found to be a person as contemplated by section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. It was only after F.I.R. 343 of Police Station Subzi Mandi dated 11th of September 1986 that the impugned notice under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act was issued to the petitioner. It would appear that on 11th of September 1986 when this case was registered the petitioner was taken into custody but on his being produced before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate he was admitted to bail. He was, however, not released on bail as alleged by the petitioner and was instead served this undated notice under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act and was taken to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who thereafter lodged him again in jail in default of bail. The notice had called upon the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 26th of September 1986 at 10 A..M. for showing cause against the proposed action.

(3.) At this stage I must take notice of the fact that the notice has made mention of the fact that the moments and acts of the petitioner are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the person and property and his presence in Delhi is hazardous to the community. It further makes mention of the fact that the witnesses are not prepared to come forward to depose against the petitioner in public due to fear of their person and property. It is in this mechanical manner that the requirements of law have been incorporated in the notice without indicating as to what is the basis for this belief. I have already mentioned the fact that the basis for this belief could not be the cases against the petitioner before 1968, because at no stage these were made use of for arriving at a satisfaction as contemplated by section 47. In short, therefore, it is actually the case under the Gambling Act of 1986 which has been made basis for this action. This does not appeal to any reasonable or prudent man. The mechanical repetition of the requirements of law is of no consequences as that would amount to clear non-application of mind. The notice does not mention as to who are the witnesses in the case and who are not forthcoming for fear at the hands of the petitioner. This notice moreover was issued in 1986 September and we are now in November 1988. in any case. it has become too State in time and cannot be sustained.