( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal against the order of externment against him dated 9. 2. 2001 passed under section 47/50 of the delhi Police Act (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner states that he is running a cable business in Shahdra and that he is being victimised as a result of his refusal to act as a stock witness In criminal cases. A show cause notice dated 11. 5. 99 was issued by the then Addl. Dy. CP, north East District, Delhi under section 47/50 of the act where a list of 20 cases against the petitioner was given. It was stated in the notice that petitioner was engaged in the commission of crime involving offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, NDPS and Arms act. The notice states that the petitioner s being large in Delhi or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards. the safety of their person and property.

( 3 ) AN order was thereafter passed on 9. 2. 2001 under section 47/50 of the Act directing the petitioner to remove himself beyond the territorial limits of Government of NCT of Delhi for a period of two years w. e. f 11. 2. 2001. The order also states that it has been found that movements and acts of the petitioner are causing and calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person or property and that he is so dangerous and desperate as to render him at large in Delhi or any part thereof is hazardous to the community. The reply of the petitioner was considered while passing the order. It is further recorded in the externment order that the respondent was found involved/arrested in a case relating to fir No. 136 dated 8. 6. 2000 under Section 25 of the arms Act. A supplementary notice was also served on the petitioner asking him to reply to the same but he failed to do so. Independent witnesses are stated to have been examined by the Addl. Dy. CP who also perused the statements recorded by ACP, Seelampur, Delhi "in camera"

( 4 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal which was dismissed by the lt. Governor, Delhi vide order dated 21. 3. 2001. Before the said appellate authority it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had not been convicted in any of the cases registered against him and reliance was placed on the judgment of the supreme Court in Prem Chand (Paniwala) vs. Union of india and Ors 1981 (1)SCC 639 to contend that secret hearings are violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional (provisions. It was, thus contended that the externing authority having relied on statements recorded "in camera", impugned order was liable to be set aside. After considering the submissions of the counsel, the appeal was dismissed by the Lt. Governor. The contention of the! counsel for the petitioner herein advanced before. the lt. Governor in respect of "in camera" evidences recorded was repelled by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parid. h. arinath shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy. commissionerof Police, state of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 630 and; State of maharashtra vs. Salem hasan Khan AIR 1989 SC 1304 since statements recorded "in camera" could be relied upon by the externing authority.

( 5 ) THE appellate order also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Ajay pal Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors in Crl. Writ no. 924/2000 decided on 2. 2. 2001 where law in this behalf is stated to have been summarised taking into consideration the latest judgment of the Supreme court in Phulwari Jagdamba Prasad Pathak (Smt.) vs. R h. Mendonca and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 751.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. M. C. Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshay Bipin, learned counsel for the respondent. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us are more or less similar as was sought to be advanced before the ap