An Additional District Magistrate, who has been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can exercise powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, as extended to Delhi.

( 1 ) WHETHER an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi, who has been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force under Section 10 (2) of the Code, can pass orders of externment under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (No. XXII of 1951), as extended to Delhi? is the question which falls for decision in the two criminal writs Nos. 20 and 23 of 1974.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the two petitions may now be noted. Avtar Singh alias Tari is the petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 20 of 1974. He was served with a notice dated June 21, 1974 (Annexure -1) issued by Shri Navin Chawla, Additional District Magistrate (South), Delhi, calling upon him to show cause why proceedings under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as extended to Delhi, should not be taken against him and he be not ex- tcrned from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years since "his movements or acts are causing alarm or calculated to cause alarm or danger or harm to the person and property to the people", and since there were reasonable grounds for believing that you are engaged or are about to engage in the commission of offences involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence". The details of the cases in which the petitioner was convicted and those pending trial were also mentioned. It was also alleged that "witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property". The petitioner with his counsel duly appeared before Shri Navin Chawla on -Tune 28, 1974, and asked for an adjournment to submit his written explanation. The learned Additional District Magistrate adjourned the case to July 12, 1974. However, on the date neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared and the learned Additional District Magistrate decided to proceed ex-parte. After recording evidence, orders were passed on July 29, 1974, directing the petitioner to remove himself outside the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years within seven days from the date of the service of the order. On August 22, 1974, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate to pass the order and also assailing the order on the ground that the learned Additional District Magistrate could not direct the petitioner to remove himself from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi.

( 3 ) RAJINDER alias Raju is the petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 23 of 1974. Shri Ashok Pradhan, Additional District Magistrate (Central) Delhi, served a notice (Annexure a ) on the petitioner under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as extended to Delhi, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The allegations made in this notice are that "you are a desperate and dangerous person and your acts and movements are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the residents of Delhi as is evident from the fact that you were challaned in the following cases". The details of the cases in which the petitioner was convicted or acquitted and those pending trial were also given. It was also alleged that "your activities clearly indicate that you are still and likely to engage in the commission of crime of theft and offences involving force and violence and the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against you by reason of apprehension as regards the safety of their person and property". The petitioner duly appeared before the learned Additional District Magistrate and raised preliminary objections vide Annexure a dated July 29, 1974, chall