( 1 ). Petitioner was externed from Delhi for six months by order dated 20. 8. 2001 passed by DCP (NW ). He took appeal against this before Lt. Governor which was dismissed by order dated 12. 9. 2001. He has now filed this petition challenging the two orders.

( 2 ). Petitioner s case, in short, is that he was a person of substance, an income-tax payee and an agriculturist and that he was falsely implicated in nine cases out of which he had earned acquittal in seven and, therefore, there was no basis or justification for removing him from the limits of Delhi. His counsel mr. Sandeep Sethi attacked the order on the ground that commissioner had failed to reflect the opinion in it that no witness was willing to come forward to depose against the externee. Nor was there anything to show that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against petitioner for fear of safety of their person or property. The camera witnesses examined had nowhere stated so but had only said that petitioner was a person of desperate character. He also pointed out that commissioner had failed to explore and weigh different options provided in Section 47 to deal with proposed externee and his order thus suffered from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. He cited Supreme Court judgments in Prem Chand Vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 613 and a judgment of this court in Swaran Lal Vs. State 20 (1981) DLT 252 and Mukhtiaruddin Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 52 (1987) DLT 238 to show that the order of externment would not sustain if it failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 47 of DPA.

( 3 ). State counsel Ms. Mukta Gupta, however, justified the order on the ground that DCP had it passed on the basis of available material and inconformity with requirements of Section 47. Any acquittal earned by petitioner before or after his externment was of no consequence. She submitted that once camera witnesses had deposed that petitioner was a criminal of desperate nature, it was implied that they were not willing to come forward to depose against him.

( 4 ). Needless to emphasise that an order of externment was loaded with serious consequences for an externee and had grave implications. It had the effect of uprooting a person from his abode and depriving him of his livelihood besides restricting his freedom of movement. The order was, therefore, required to be passed on due consideration and application of mind and in strict conformity with the relevant provisions of dpa. It would be vitiated if it failed to satisfy the statutory requirement or when it was found to have been passed arbitrarily or cursorily reflecting non-application of mind by the Authority.

( 5 ). It is true that police force had an onerous task of not only maintaining law and order but also to prevent commission of offences by persons having previous criminal record and criminal propensity. But that would nor afford a long rope for passing of externment orders infringing constitutional right and guarantee of life and liberty in the process. It, therefore, becomes necessary to make sure that such order was passed fairly and justly on the basis of material and not mere apprehension and that it satisfied all relevant statutory requirements. Though it was to be passed on subjective satisfaction of the commissioner and though the sufficiency or otherwise of the material considered by the Authority in passing this could not be examined or appraised or appreciated even if a contrary view was possible on such material, yet the order was not beyond the pale of judicial review because it was obligatory on the commissioner to show that it was passed in tune with the statutory requirements. This is how the Supreme Court viewed the issue in Prem Chand Vs. Union holding :-

"the courts are conscious of the difficulties of detention and proof and the strain on the police in tracking down criminals, but fundamental rights are fundamental and personal liberty cannot be put at the mercy of the police.