( 1 ) THROUGH this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks the quashing of order of his externment dated 29. 12. 2003 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi and that of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, dated 3. 3. 2004 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON receipt of a proposal for externment of the petitioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") giving an opportunity to the petitioner as to why an order for his externment be not made on the facts, circumstances and material disclosed in the notice. The petitioner appeared before the Additional Deputy Commission of Police and filed a reply. The competent authority after consideration of the facts, circumstances and the material obtaining on record, made an order dated 29. 12. 2003 thereby directing the petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits NCT of Delhi for a period of two years on the stipulation that he could return to the limits of the NCT of Delhi for the purpose of attending the hearing of the Court cases pending against him. The competent authority concluded that the petitioner s activities were causing alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property of respectable citizens of Delhi and unless and until he was removed from the said environment and separated from his associates, he will not desist his activities. It was shown before the competent authority that the petitioner was involved in as many as 13 cases, all of those being for violation "of the provisions of Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The cases related to the period from January 1991 to May 2003. In some of the cases the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was found in possession of large quantity of illicit liquor. Yet another factor was that due to the fear of their person and property at the hands of the petitioner, the witnesses were not prepared to depose against the petitioner. The statement of said witnesses is stated to have been recorded in camera.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of externment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor of Delhi under Section 51 of the Act but without any success. Hence this petition.

( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain, learned Cousel representing the petitioner and Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned Standing Cousel for the State and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the petitioner has set out several grounds in the petition for assailing the impugned order but during the course of hearing, learned Cousel for the petitioner has primarily confined his attack to the following grounds:

(A) Nothing was brought on record to suggest that the petitioner is so desperate and dangerous a person as to render his being as much in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community or that his movements or acts were causing or were calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.

(B) The cases in which the appellant was stated to be involved are only in respect of violation of Excise Law which cannot be considered very grave.

(C) Out of 13 cases in which the petitioner was stated to be involved, 9 cases related to the period between 1991 to 1999, therefore, were remote in time and so irrelevant and there was no involvement of the appellant in any case between 1999 and 2003.

( 6 ) IN support of his submissions on the first ground that there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is a desperate and dangerous person and consequently no order of externment could have been passed, learned Cousel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand v. Union of India and Ors. , 19 (1981) DLT 118 (SC)=air 1981 SCC 613. In this case the Hon ble Su