The finality of externment orders under Section 52 of the Delhi Police Act and the requirement for fair opportunity and sufficient material to support such orders.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police whereby vide order dated 23rd March, 2021 the petitioner was directed to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year with effect from 30th March, 2021 and during the period of externment period was directed not to enter or return to the limits of NCT of Delhi without prior permission except for attending the Court hearings on all dates, which order of the Additional DCP West District was upheld by the Lt. Governor vide the impugned order dated 19th April, 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of issuance of the show cause notice by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police only one case was registered against the petitioner in the last three years preceding the show cause notice dated 25th July, 2019 and hence the finding of the two adjudicating authorities that the petitioner was a habitual offender is contrary to the explanation to Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act (in short DP Act). As regards 26 involvements of the petitioner the same were from 1993 to 2007 whereafter the petitioner was involved in only three cases of Excise Act out of which in two he has been acquitted and one case of 2016 was pending trial besides the case of 2019 which was also pending trial. The petitioner having been acquitted in these cases, the same could not have been taken into consideration.

3. Before the Lt. Governor the petitioner raised 8 grounds and none of the said grounds were considered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that the petitioner was involved in 28 cases which is an error apparent on record as the said cases were too remote in time and out of them the petitioner had been acquitted in 7 cases. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notice only one case under Section 33/38 Delhi Excise Act was pending prior and one case was under investigation and hence it cannot be said that the criminal activities of the petitioner were a great menace and that he was so desperate and dangerous as to render his being large in NCT of Delhi or hazardous to the community; contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 25 (1984) DLT 285 Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District. The cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted have also been utilized for passing the externment order. While deciding an appeal under Section 51 of the DP Act, Rule 25(2) of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rule was required to be followed, which has not been followed. The Externing Authority and the Appellate Authority both have taken into consideration even cases under the Gambling Act and breach of peace under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. contrary to the law. It is contended that the Appellate Authority is required to pass a reasoned order in the absence whereof the right granted to the petitioner is illusionary. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as AIR 1981 SC 613 Prem Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors. and of this Court reported as 1986 (29) DLT 437 Mohd. Aslam Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors.

4. Countering the above said arguments learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contends that the contention of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend is incorrect for the reason show cause notice under Section 50 of the DP Act was issued to the petitioner on 25th July, 2019 whereafter the petitioner appeared on 3rd September, 2019 and the final order was passed on 23rd March, 2021. All these grounds were urged before the Lt. Governor also who considered the same and passed a reasoned order. Section 52 of the Delhi Police Act attaches finality to the order passed by the Externing Authority and the Appellate Authority, hence the scope of interference by judicial review in a writ petition is very limited, the same being that the Addition