R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) On 3rd Feb. 1981, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi, served the petitioner with a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. The relevant part of the notice is as follows : Allegations That since 15.7.67 you are engaged in the Commission of illegal act and offences against body or property involving force or violence and that your activities or movements in the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi are causing alarm) danger or harm to the person or property.
(2) That it has been made to appear to me that you have been continuing your criminal activities and have engaged yourself in the commission of offences against body or property involving force or violence/ falling under Arms Act, and the following cases were registered against you:-
1.FIR No. 452 dt. 15.7.67 u/s. 61/1/14 E.Act.PS K.Bagh. Delhi 2. , 414 dt. 15.9.79 u/s -do- -do- 3. , 460 dt. 25.5.70 u/s -do- -do- 4. , 477 dt. 30.5.70 u/s -do- . -do- 5. , 586 dt. 2.7.70 u/s -do- -do- 6. , 593 dt. 3.7.70 u/s 9/1/78 0. Act -do- 7. , 1018 dt. 9.11.70 u/s 61/1/14 E. Act -do- 8. , 244 dt. 23.3.74 u/s -do- -do- 9. ' 896 dt-15.10.71 u/s -do- -do- 10. ' 931 dt-20.10.71 u/s -do- -do- ll. ' 996 dt. 5.11.71 u/s -do- -do- 12. ' 517 dt. 1.6.75 u/s -do- -do- 13. ' 519 dt. 7.2.78 u/s -do- -do- 14. ' 305 dt. 13.3.78 u/s -do- -do- 15. ' 626 dt. 2.6.78 u/s 25/54/59 A.Act -do-
That the perusal of the above cases and material on record reveal that your activities/movements are of great menace and that you are so desperate and dangerous as to reader your seeing at large in the Union Territory of Delhi or any part thereof hazardous to the community. From the material on record, it is revealed that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards to the safety of their person or property. The petitioner has by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality and virus of the aforesaid order on the ground that earlier on 7th November 1978 on the same material a notice under section 50 of the Act was served on the petitioner but the proceedings were dropped and that, again, on 21st March 1979 a notice under section 50 was issued and by an order dated 26th September 1979 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, dropped the proceedings and discharged the respondent and that the initiations of the proceedings for the third time on the same material is illegal and vitiated. It is also alleged that in all the cases mentioned in the notice except cases at Seriall No. 13 and 14 the petitioner has been acquitted and the Deputy Commissioner of Police was not justified in initiating the proceedings on the basis of cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted, and that issuance of a notice on the basis of such a material shows no application of mind. The petitioner has further alleged that on promise of showing favors he had consented to become a police witness in a number of cases of recovery of contraband and that when he realised the mistake and wanted to get out of this evil circle he came into conflict with Shri 0m Prakash Mehta, Sub-Inspector, who threatened to implicate him in false cases. The petitioner has further mentioned about various complaints made by him to the senior officers against Shri Mehta. '
(3) The petitioner has filed on record the earlier notices that were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the petitioner for externment. The said notices show that the material on the basis of which the impugned notice has been issued also formed the grounds for issuing the earlier notices. Besides that the cases mentioned at Seriall No. 1 to 12 are too remote in time. It is significant that in all the said cases the petitioner was acquitted. In the cases mentioned at Seriall No. 15 the petitioner was acquitted on 15th April 1980 and still it forms a ground of issuing the notice under section 50 of the Act in February 1981. I am clearly of the view that the cases in which the petitioner was tried and acquitted cannot form the basis for an action for externment under section 47.
(4) In Prem Chand v. Union of India and others, 19 (1981) DLT 18, the Supreme Court while considering section 47 and 50 of the Aot observed as under :
'SECTIONS 47 and 50 have to be read strictly. Any police apprehension is not enough for passing order of externment. Some ground or other is not adequate. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or brought with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his more presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this: power to the detriment of the fundamental freedoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings. are gross violations of Aits. 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act permits externment, provided the action is bona fide. All power. including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial scrutiny.
(5) On a consideration of the entire material placed on the record,, I am of the view that there was no credible material before the Deputy Commissioner of police justifying the action under section 47. The action is wanting in bona fides. I would, accordingly, allow the petition and quash the proceedings.