JUDGMENT
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.
(1) Malik Sharief-Ud-Din J.-By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice under sections 47/50 of Delhi Police Act dated 15th June 1982. It is being challenged on various grounds and there is no need for me for burdening this order by making reference to the/same excepting that the petitioner has imputed malafides to the officers involved in the actions.
(2) In the counter affidavit the respondent has tried to justify the issuance of notice on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in the commission of offences and is habitually indulging in the commission of breach of peace. It is also stated that his presence was considered to be hazardous to the community in general and the notice was issued because of the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police that the witnesses are not coming forward against him in public for fear of their personal safety and the safety of their property.
(3) The externment notice is passed on the basis of five cases, one allegedly registered in 1977 followed by a case each in 1978, 1979 and 1982. The last one is a D.D. report under sections 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code The notice states that the petitioner is involved in the cases/of theft, assault on public servant and breach of peace and his movements and acts are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to persons and property. It further states that his presence in the area is hazardous to the community and the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against him in public for fear of their personal safety.
(4) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition is to be allowed on two short grounds. Firstly, it is nowhere mentioned in the notice as to which of the witnesses and in which case has not come forward to depose against the petitioner in public for fear of his own safety. The notice to the petitioner under section 50 of Delhi Police Act 1978 would be meaningless if the petitioner does not know as to what he has to explain. Admittedly the first two cases mentioned in the notice were compromised and there is no question of the witnesses not coming forward to depose against the petitioner in public for fear of their own safety. The satisfaction of the Commissioner is therefore based on no material. The other ground on the basis of which the petition is to be allowed is the fact that the first three cases mentioned in the notice were the subject-matter of externment proceedings wherein the petitioner was externed for a period of two yearsbyanorderpassedonl2.10.78. The Lt. Governor by his order dated 7.12.79 has allowed the appeal and set aside the externment order. He has given reasons for refusing to act on this material. Obviously, this material cannot be once again pressed into service for issuing the notice under section 47. The least that can be said is that for any further future action this material would be deemed to be irrelevant and could not be made basis for arriving at the satisfaction to proceed under section 47 of the Act. Strangely, the impugned notice is based also on the three cases in respect of which the appellate authority has exonerated the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it appears that notice has been issued in a most casual and mechanical manner without proper application of mind and it is liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed and the impugned notice quashed.