The court upheld preventive externment orders despite lack of convictions, emphasizing the necessity to protect public safety based on credible grounds.

1. These are two connected petitions, being Crl. Writ Petition No. 583/97 (Surjeet Singh v. State and another) and Crl. Writ Petition No. 641/97 (Smt. Niyamti v. State and Another). The petitioners through the present petitions have taken exception to the externment orders dated April 8, 1997 and March 13, 1997 whereby the petitioners herein were directed to remove themselves beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said orders. They were further directed by the impugned orders not to enter or return to the National Capital Territory of Delhi within the aforementioned period of two years without the written permission of the competent authority.
Since common questions of law and fact are to be gone, to in both the writ petitions I propose to dispose them of by one and the same judgment.

2. Brief facts which led to the presentation of petition No. 583/97 are that a proposal for the externment of the petitioner was put up before the Deputy Commissioner of Police by SHO PS Inderpuri through ACP, Naraina, on the ground that the petitioner was a desperate and dangerous type of person whose activities were causing alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property of the locality in the area of PS Inderpuri. The petitioner was not enjoying good reputation. He was also harbouring criminals at his residence. As a corollary of the above people were unwilling to come forward against him in the public or in the court of account of the apprehension to the safety of their person and property. The petitioner was a desperate criminal who earned his bread by way of commission of offences.

3. In view of the above a notice dated November 27,1996 under S.50 of the Delhi Police Act was served on the petitioner. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner appeared before the Dy. Commissioner of Police. he was appraised of the contents of the notice. The petitioner was also asked to produce defence witnesses, if any.

4. The learned D. C. P. after appraisal of the material which was placed by the SHO, PS Inderpuri, and consideration of the defence evidence came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for passing an externment order against the petitioner under S.47 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of reference). Consequently, the petitioner was directed to remove himself from the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years.

5. The petitioner, Niyamti has, on the other hand, challenged the externment order dated March 13, 1997 passed by Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North District. Proposal for her externment was received from SHO, Prasad Nagar through ACP and was put up before the DCP on January 8, 1997. After going through the said proposal and examining the material on record, a notice for externment was issued to the petitioner Smt. Niyamti in terms of the provisions of S.47 and S.50 of the Act. After a careful consideration of the material on record the petitioner was ordered to remove herself beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said orders.

6. The petitioners challenged the above order before the Lt. Governor by way of appeals. Their appeals were dismissed vide judgment and order dated June 30, 1997 and July 29, 1997 respectively. The petitioners in the above circumstances have approached this Court through the present writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sodhi Teja Singh has vehemently contended that the impugned or