( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned notice dated 8th May 1981 issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central), respondent No. 2, herein, to show-cause why the petitioner be not externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi. The said notice purports to have been issued under Section 50 read with Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ). The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said notice are as under:

"that since 24-1-65 you are engaged in the commission of illegal acts 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. 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 offence against body or property involving force or violence falling under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code and the following cases were registered against you.

THAT the perusal of the above cases and material on record reveal that your activities/movements are great menace and that you are so desperate and dangerous as to render your being at large in the Union Territory of Delhi or any part thereof hazardous to the community. From the material on record, further it reveals that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reasons of apprehension or their part as regards to the safety of their persons or property. "

( 3 ). The contention of the petitioner it that he is engaged in the lawful business of old clothes in wholesale at Jama Masjid and he is a permanent resident of the locality. However, he incurred the wrath of local police due to which he was constrained to make a complaint against Shri H. L. Kapoor, at one time Station House Officer and now Assistant Commissioner of Police, in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate. He had also made allegations in the said complaint against several other subordinate police officials of the police station but he could not pursue the complaint due to certain limitations. Thus, according to him, the proceeding for his externment from the Union Territory of Delhi has been initiated by respondent No. 2 malafide and is motivated. On merits, he has contended that he has never been convicted of any offence whatsoever and whatever criminal cases were falsely instituted against him culminated either in his discharge or acquittal. Further, according to him, the allegations made against him in the impugned notice are either stale or totally irrelevant and are not based on any substantive evidence/material.

( 4 ). A perusal of the allegations reproduced above would show that the grounds available to the police under clauses (a), (b) and (c) (i) of Section 47 of the Act which is designed to remove persons who are about to commit offences, are sought to be pressed into service. The said Section reads as under:

"47. Removal of persons about to commit offences. Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of police- (a) that the movements or acts of any person arc causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) or under Section 290 or Sections 489a to 489e (both inclusive) of that Code or in the abetment of any such offence; or (c) that such person- (i) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community; or and that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police