( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing of externment order dated 28/07/2000 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, north East District under Sections 47/50 of the Delhi police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) thereby directing the petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years with effect from 5/08/2000.

( 2 ) EXTERNMENT proceedings under Section 47 of the Act were initially commenced against the petitioner with a notice dated 15-2-1994 issued under section 50 of the Act. However, before the notice could be acted upon and the proceedings could be taken to logical conclusion the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in several cases and remained confined in jail. Consequently upon his acquittal in the criminal cases and on his release the proceedings were revived and three supplementary notices dated 26/10/1999, 2/6/2000 and 24/6/2000 in continuation of the previous notice were issued to the petitioner stating therein that beside the five cases mentioned in the notice dated 15/2/1994, he involved himself in the following cases:-

SR. No. FIR No. and Year section of Law police Station 1. 139/94 324/34 IPC seelampur 2. 456/94 307 IPC -DO- 3. 831/97 302/307/452/34 IPC -DO- and 27 Arms Act. 4. DD No. 4-A 107/151 Cr. P. C.-Do- dt. 26. 1. 95 5. DD No. 45-B -DO- -Do- dt. 16. 5. 997 6. 212/2000 452/606/323/365/ -Do- 34 IPC 7. 256/2000 452/342/365/506/ -Do- 34 IPC 8. 169/2000 302/216/225-B/ -Do- 34 IPC 9. DD No. 20-A regarding Threat to -Do- dt. 4. 6. 2000 public

( 3 ) THE petitioner was called upon to furnish his reply which he did and on a consideration of the same and after hearing the petitioner, the Competent authority i. e. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order dated 28/7/2000 which inter alia contained the following observations, findings and directions:-

"today, the respondent is present without his defence counsel to argue his case. Prior to decide his case, I have carefully gone"through the record and other relevant material available during the course of proceedings. The record suggests that the respondent is involved in 13 criminal cases Indian penal code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. and Arms Act like robbery, murder, attempt to murder, hurt, abduction, illegal possession of arms, etc. He is also notorious and active bad character of p. S. Seelampur. A close scrutiny of the record clearly indicates that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that he is actively involved in the criminal cases. I am of the view that he is not likely to improve his conduct in future and his presence in the community creates harm and danger to the local residents. No witnesses are willing to depose in public against him because of the apprehension on their part as regards to the safety of their person at the hands of the respondent and his conduct definitely requires stringent view. Keeping in view of the evidence brought on file i. e. notice, supplementary notice and unconvincing replies of the notices and supplementary notices and record of his criminal activities and other evidence adduced during the course of proceedings. I have no hesitation in concluding that he is incorrigible type of criminal who indulges himself in criminal activities and not likely to perform his way of life. His activities and acts in the area of N C T of Delhi are causing and are calculated to cause harm danger and alarm to the respectable citizens i am of the view that his case is well within the scope of section 47 (a), (b), (c) (1) of Delhi Police Act and he is fit person to be externed from the limits of N C T of Delhi now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested on me under action 47/50 D P Act 1978 and conferred on me by the order of Commissioner of police, Delhi under Section 8 (11) of the said act, I, Sunil Garg, Addl. Dy. Commi