ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-1, North West District: Delhi in File No.D-01/2015 whereby he has been externed from the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year as well as the order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Case No.175/2016 by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, affirming and upholding the order of externment.

2. An externment proposal was initiated against the petitioner, citing four cases against him in Bharat Nagar Police Station. The table of cases provided in the externment proposal is being extracted below:

S.No. FIR No. Date Under Section Police Station Present Position

1. 01 01.01.2013 33 Delhi Ex. Act Bharat Nagar Pending Trial

2. 155 11.06.2013 33 Delhi Ex. Act Bharat Nagar Pending Trial

3. 217 21.04.2014 323/341/34 IPC Bharat Nagar Pending Trial

4. 48 28.01.2015 323/341/506/34IPC Bharat Nagar Pending Invest.

3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North West District, on perusal of the proposal and materials on record took a preliminary decision of commencing with the externment proceedings. The petitioner was made known the charges against him and the petitioner responded by denying the allegations levelled against him.

4. In the externment proceedings, some independent witnesses of the area were examined in camera since they were not willing to come forward to give evidence, in public, against the petitioner for the fear of reprisal or backlash. The Officer-in-Charge, Bharat Nagar Police Station was also examined as a prosecution witness, who has stated that on being satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person, he had initiated the externment proposal. One defence witness on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Shri Hari Chand, was also examined who claimed to have known the petitioner as neighbour. He has stated that the petitioner has been vending vegetables in Sawan Park, Delhi and has good moral character. Taking into account the materials collected during the proceeding and the proposal of externment, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, vide order dated 07.10.2016 directed for externment of the petitioner for a period of one year. The petitioner was asked to remove himself from the limits of NCT of Delhi within 7 days from the passing of the order. However, the petitioner was given permission to attend the court on all dates of hearing but was directed to remove himself from the limits of NCT of Delhi immediately thereafter.

5. The aforesaid order of externment was upheld and affirmed by the appellate authority on 30.11.2016 in Case No.175/2016.

6. A perusal of the orders impugned depicts that two cases were lodged against the petitioner in the year 2013 and one case each in the years 2014 and 2015. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the implication of the petitioner in such cases by one police official casts a serious doubt about the genuineness of the implication of the petitioner. It has also been argued that in the background of the nature of cases which have been cited against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be termed as a habitual offender. Thus, the impugned orders have been challenged as being unsustainable as the externment proposal itself smacks of vindictive action on the part of the local police.

7. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, defended the orders impugned on the ground that the contents and accusation of the various cases listed against the petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner has criminal proclivity and no fault could be found either with the externment order or the appellate order. He has further submitted that the “in- camera” witnesses deposed against the activities of the petitioner but wanted their identity to be kept confidential.

8. The orders impugned are also defended on the ground that what is required to be seen is the existence of the materials against the proposed externee and not sufficie