Delhi High Court
Kamal Bhatia vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 June, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 28th March, 2025
Pronounced on: 27th June, 2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 77/2025, CRL.M.A. 675/2025 (stay)
KAMAL BHATIA
S/o Shri Praveen Bhatia
R/o H-134-A, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095
Contact No.9811062866
Email Id- [email protected] .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Umang Tyagi,
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Zuber Ali,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through DCP Shahdara
District-Shahdara
Delhi-110032
Contact No.9818099052
Email Id- [email protected] .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the
State along with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar,
Advocate with SI Anil, P.S. Seemapuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read
with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old
Provision Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 1 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Kamal Bhatia for quashing/setting-aside of
the Order dated 11.12.2024 in Case No. 209/2024 whereby the Hon‟ble
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, has upheld the Externment Order dated
15.07.2024, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I,
Shahdara District, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, Shahdara
District Delhi, initiated Externment proceedings against the Petitioner
under Section 47 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 (for short „D.P. Act‟) D.P. Act
vide File No. 68/2003 on 25.11.2023. Notice under Section 50 D.P. Act
dated 25.11.2023 was served upon the Petitioner and he was informed about
the general nature of the material allegations against him; that his
movements are calculated to cause danger and harm to person and property
which appears from his involvement in offences for which 5 FIRs were
registered against him. The Complainant stated that the Petitioner was a
history sheeter and had previous involvement in five cases of murder,
dacoity etc., A direction was also issued to appear before the learned DCP
on 26.12.2013.
3. The contents of the Notice were explained to him in Hindi but he
denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and contested the case.
4. A detailed Reply dated 29.01.2024 under Section 50 of D.P. Act, was
submitted by him. The Petitioner claimed that all the allegations made
against him were false and frivolous. He was a peace loving and law-
abiding citizen having a good reputation in the society. He further explained
that out of the five FIRs, he was acquitted in FIR No. 525/2015; while the
second FIR No. 1268/2015 was compounded. FIR No. 14/2017 dated
24.01.2017, was a cross-FIR registered against him after a delay of 15 days.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 2 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
He also explained that the pistol recovered in the said case was the licensed
pistol of the co-accused, which had been kept by him for safety purposes.
5. Petitioner in respect of FIR No. 462 dated 27.12.2016, stated that the
said case has been compromised with the Complainant and a Petition has to
be filed in this Court for its quashing.
6. Last FIR No. 512 dated 19.11.2022 was claimed to be a false FIR
registered in 2022 on the basis of CCTV footage of the year 2019. He
further denied that he is a threat to the safety of any witness and was ready
to give an undertaking in that regard.
7. On 04.03.2024, Inspector Devinder Singh was examined as
Prosecution witness, who deposed about the involvement of the Petitioner
in five criminal Cases. He deposed that there is likelihood of him to indulge
in such offences in future also. Further, the citizens were not willing to
come forward to give evidence against him due to apprehension to the
safety of their person and property at the hands of the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner herein produced Mr. Jaspreet as his defence witness
on 29.04.2024, who deposed that he was residing in the neighbourhood of
the Petitioner, for last more than 12 years and he was a well-behaved person
against whom there was no complaint in the locality. In his cross-
examination, he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the cases
registered against him. He also deposed that the Respondent had his own
shop of spare parts of auto and was not involved in any unlawful activities.
9. The DCP in the Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 observed that he
was involved in five Criminal Cases and was a Bad Character (B.C.) of
Bundle -A of Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi. His continuous presence in
the area is leading to alarm and danger in the minds of law-abiding citizens
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 3 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
of the area, who have a right to lead a peaceful life. Because of his
continuous and persistent activities, he is hazardous to society. It was thus
concluded that it was a fit case for the Petitioner, to be externed from the
limits of the NCT of Delhi. Consequently, Externment Order dated
15.07.2024 under Section 47 D.P. Act was passed and the Petitioner was
directed to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT, for a period of two
years within seven days.
10. The Petitioner filed an Appeal vide Case No. 209/2024 under Section
51 D.P. Act, before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, who vide
his Order dated 11.12.2024 concluded that there was no merit in the Appeal
and found no reason to interfere with the same.
11. Aggrieved by the Externment Order, the Petitioner has preferred the
present Petition.
12. The Petitioner has submitted that he is a 29-year old married person,
who is the only son of his parents and is the sole bread earner of the family.
The Petitioner completed his education upto Class XII and was a good
student. However, because of the financial constraints on account of his
father‟s ill health, the Petitioner was forced to discontinue his formal
education and assume responsibilities for supporting his family. He
explained that in the year 2013, he commenced his employment at a Call
Centre in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad but later in the same year, he joined a
Builder Firm known as Delhi-NCR-DLF, Ghaziabad, where he remained
employed till 2015.
13. At the instance of his family, he joined the family business of auto
spare parts, which was being run in the name of Bhatia Auto Spare Parts,
located at Geeta Colony, Delhi. During the course of his business, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 4 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
became acquainted with Deepak Khairpur, who was engaged in the sale and
purchase of the cars. Through this acquaintance, he was introduced to one
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, with whom he started a business in partnership in the
name of Lean 21 Café., located at AGCR Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.
14. After about one year, he discovered that Mr. Deepak Khairpur was
involved in illegal activities. He promptly dissociated himself from him.
This led to disagreements with Mr. Gautam Sharma, resulting in dissolution
of the partnership and bitterness between the parties.
15. In the course of the business market, he gained recognition and fame
in the market but was accompanied by animosity amongst certain
individuals. This animosity resulted in registering of multiple frivolous and
vexatious Complaints and FIR against him, most of which have been
compounded or have resulted in acquittal.
16. The Petitioner further asserted that in the year 2017, the health of his
mother deteriorated on account of cancerous tumour, which necessitated a
mastectomy. The Petitioner‟s father was also involved in a serious accident
and was rendered incapable to carry out many of his daily needs
independently. The Petitioner started focussing on the medical needs of his
ailing parents. The Petitioner got married in 2022 and since then, he has
been fulfilling his obligations towards his family members.
17. The Petitioner claimed that he was engaged in various lawful
businesses, though they were all unsuccessful. He started a Cloud Kitchen
business under the name of Fit and Healthy Diet, which also suffered losses
during the Covid Era. At present, the Petitioner is engaged in the finance
business and is also operating a YouTube Channel “Glock Music Record,
alongside taking care of his family responsibilities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 5 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
18. The Petitioner has submitted that he was surprised to receive the
Externment Notice in December, 2023. He has explained that there were
five FIRs registered against him, details of which are as under:-
S.No FIR No. DATE SECTION POLICE STATUS REMARKS
STATION
1. 525 04.04.2015 341/323/506/ Seema Puri Acquitted Vide Order
34 IPC dated
07.12.2021 in
Crl. Cases
88104/2016
2. 1628 27.11.2015 341/323/506/ Seema Puri Compounded Vide Order
34 IPC dated
09.03.2018 in
Cr. Cases
87772/2016
3. 462 27.12.2016 341/323/506/ GTB Enclave Pending Trial The matters
427/34 IPC stands
compromised
and a quashing
petition is due
to be filed soon.
4. 14 24.01.2017 307/323/506/ GTB Enclave Pending Trial Case of cross
341/34 IPC FIR registered
and post-date after
25/27/54/59 the registration
of Arms Act of the FIR No.
04/2017
5. 512 19.11.2022 195A/34 IPC GTB Enclave Pending Trial The FIR
pertains to an
alleged incident
dated
09.05.2019 and
is registered
after a delay of
over 3.5 years
19. The Petitioner has explained that he has been acquitted in one FIR
No. 525/2015; while the second FIR No. 1628/2015, has been
compounded. No other FIR is pending in the Police Station Seema Puri and
thus, there was no ground for the SHO, PS Seemapuri for initiating the
Externment proceedings against him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 6 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
20. It is further submitted that the other three FIRs were of Police Station
G.T.B. Enclave. The FIR No. 14/2017 is frivolous and superficial and is
only an afterthought as a counter to the assertions made in FIR No. 14/2017.
21. The Petitioner has stated that from 2019 to 2022, he was having a
clean record with no FIRs or Criminal Cases registered against him. FIR
No. 512/2022 was registered under Section 95A/34 IPC, for an alleged
incident which took place on 09.05.2019, after an unexplained delay of 3.5
years.
22. The Petitioner has further asserted that no witnesses were summoned
or examined during the Externment proceedings nor was he provided any
opportunity of hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice,
making the Externment Order perverse. Moreover, he was not provided with
any opportunity to cross-examine any witness. On 29.09.2024, he had
presented two witnesses namely, Jaspreet and Mr. Sahej Singh, but the
Additional DCP permitted only Mr. Jaspreet Singh, to depose on his behalf.
This witness attested to the Petitioner‟s good character and his testimony
was not contradicted.
23. It is further contended that the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor while
dismissing his Appeal, did not conduct any independent analysis of the
allegations or looked into the procedural irregularities as highlighted by
him.
24. The Externment Order dated 11.12.2024 is challenged on the
ground that the Respondent has failed to establish any immediate danger or
threat posed by the Petitioner to public safety and that the Externment Order
has been made without any substantive evidence. Reliance has been placed
on Prem Chand vs. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 639 wherein it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 7 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
observed that mere police apprehension is not enough and there must be a
clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the
movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or
fraught with violence.
25. It is further asserted that the Respondent has acted in a biased and
arbitrary manner without following due process of law and giving
reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, to defend himself. The Impugned
Order lacks a reasonable foundation as it does not demonstrate a clear
connection of the Petitioner with the alleged conduct or that he is an
imminent threat to the public safety. It has not been demonstrated that the
witnesses, if any, were indeed unwilling to testify against the Petitioner.
26. The Petitioner has further submitted that the Externment Order labels
him as a person of ‘Bad Character’, yet no Notice of this allegation was
ever provided to him. The Petitioner had consistently demonstrated his
willingness for complying with all the directives of the Police and had
cooperated in the investigations in the FIRs. This failure to recognise this
co-operation in the Externment Order, reflects an arbitrary exercise of
Power, undermining the principles of natural justice and fair play.
27. It is further submitted that this Externment Order would not only
restrict his ability to earn his livelihood, but also would prevent him from
taking care of his ailing parents.
28. Hence, the prayer is made for quashing of the impugned Externment
Order dated 15.07.2024 and the Order of Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor
dated 11.12.2024 whereby the Externment Order has been upheld.
29. The State has filed a Status Report wherein it has been highlighted
that the Petitioner‟s involvement in five Criminal Cases at different Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 8 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
Stations. It is submitted that he is a habitual offender and a person of „Bad
character‟ of Bundle-A of Police Station Seema Puri. It was, therefore,
submitted that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
30. Submissions heard and the record perused.
31. The Petitioner has challenged the Externment Order dated 15.07.2024
on various grounds including that it lacks any clear or cogent material
justifying any imminent threat to public safety merely on the basis of stale
FIRs.
32. The Scope of Judicial review by the Writ Court of a Quasi Judicial
order is explained by the Supreme Court of India in the Case of State of
NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, (2005) 5 SCC 181wherein while
dealing the scope of interference in an Externment Order, Apex Court
observed that though, such order is an administrative Order and the Courts
must be slow to interfere in such Orders made by the Competent Authority,
but it is trite law that the Order may in exercise of power whether legislative
or administrative, would be set-aside if there is manifest error in the exercise
of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. The
principles can be grouped in two categories. i) failure to exercise a
discretion and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power. These two
Clauses were held to be not mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be
improperly exercised because irrelevant considerations have been taken into
account.The Courts must be therefore, slow to interfere in matters relating to
administrative functions unless the decision is tainted by any vulnerability
as stated above.
33. Another principle of immense significance is “Reasonableness”.
Lord Greene in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 9 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
Corpn., (1947) 2 All ER 680, observed that the discretion must be
exercised reasonably. The word ‘reasonably’ may be explained as a person
entrusted with discretion,must direct himself properly in law. He must call
his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must
exclude such matters which are irrelevant. If he does not follow the rules, it
is often said that he has acted „unreasonably‟.
34. Similarly, wheresomething so absurd is donethat no sensible person
could even dream that it lay within the powers of the Authority, it may be
termed as unreasonable. Another instance of acting unreasonable is when
extraneous matters are taken into consideration. The term “ureasonable”
may be described as being done in bad faith and in fact, all these things run
into one another.
35. Lord Diplock in CCSU Case (1984) 3 All ER 935, defined the scope
of judicial review of administrative action to be on the principles of
‘illegality’ ‘procedural impropriety’ and ‘irrationality’. The term
„irrationality‟, which may be termed as „Wednesbury reasonableness‟
means a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of
accepted moral standards that no reasonable person, who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. „Irrational‟
implies that it is a decision „so outrageous‟ as to be in total defiance of logic
or moral standards. Adoption of „proportionality‟ into administrative law
was left for the future.
36. These principles were noted by the Apex Court in the case of Union
of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 wherein it was held that in
essence, the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-
making process and not in the decision itself.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 10 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
37. Having considered the scope of S.482 and the parameters for judicial
review in the quasi- judicial Orders, the facts of present case may be
examined.
38. The objective behind passing an Externment Order under Section
S.47 DP Act was for a benign purpose in the context of escalation of crime,
wherein restrictions which, in normal times may appear unreasonable, may
have to be clamped on the individuals. In the case of Deepak vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99, the Apex Court observed that there
cannot be any manner of doubt that an Externment Order is an extraordinary
measure. The effect of the Order is not to deprive a citizen of his
fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. In
practical terms, such an Order prevents the person even from staying in his
own house along with his family members during the period for which this
Externment Order is in subsistence. It may even deprive the person of his
livelihood. Therefore, recourse to this Section must be made sparingly
keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary measure.
39. Before considering the facts of this case, it would be pertinent to
consider Section 47 of Delhi Police Act which provides for the passing of an
Externment Order. It reads as under:-
47. Removal of persons about to commit offences-
Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of Police-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person
are causing or are calculated to cause alarm,
danger of harm to person or property; or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is aboutSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 11 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
to be engaged in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVL,
Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or under Section 290 or
Sections 489A to 489E (both inclusive) of that
Code or in the abetment of any such offence; or
(c) that such person-
(i) is so desperate and dangerous
as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any
part thereof hazardous to the community; or
(ii) has been found habitually
intimidating other persons by acts of
violence or by show of force; or
(iii) habitually commits affray or breach
of peace of riot, or habitually makes forcible
collection of subscription or threatens
people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself
or for others; or
(iv) has been habitually passing indecent
remarks on women and girls, or teasing them by
overtures,and that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police witnesses
are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public
against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as
regards the safety of their person or property, the
Commissioner of Police may, by order in writing duly served
on such person, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit,
direct such person to so conduct himself as shall seem
necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or to remove
himself outside Delhi or any part thereof, by such route and
within such time as the Commissioner of Police may specifySignature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 12 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
and not to enter or return to Delhi or part thereof, as the case
may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.
Explanation- A person who during a period within one
year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under
this section has been found on not less than three occasions to have
committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in
this section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.
40. Section 50 of the Act defines the procedure to be followed for
passing an Order of Externment.
41. The Order of Externment may be passed under the following
circumstances:
(i) that the movement or the acts of any person is calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or
(ii) that there are reasonable grounds that he would be engaged in the
commission of an offence; or
(iii) that he so desperate and dangerous that his being at large would be
hazardous to the community; or
(iv) that he is found habitually intimidating to other persons or is
habitually committing affray or breach of peace; or is habitually passing
indecent remarks on women.
42. In this backdrop, the facts of present case may be considered to
ascertain if Order under Section 47 of D.P. Act, was merited.
(i) Movement or the acts of any person is calculated to cause alarm,
danger or harm to person or property:
43. The first requirement for Externment according to Clause 47 (a), is
that any person whose movement is considered to be dangerous or harmful
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 13 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
to the persons or property, may be. However, there is not an iota of
averment, what to talk of evidence to show that there was any imminent
threat to the person or property of any individual.
44. Inspector Devinder Singh was examined as Prosecution witness,
who deposed about the involvement of the Petitioner in five criminal Cases.
He also deposed that there is likelihood of him to indulge in such offences
in future too. Further, the citizens were not willing to come forward to give
evidence against him due to apprehension to the safety of their person and
property at the hands of the Petitioner.
45. The Competent Authority must be satisfied while invoking Clause (b)
of Section 56 that there is sufficient material on record to satisfy that
witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against such
person by reason of apprehension of their safety or property. However, the
entire evidence of the Prosecution witness conspicuously does not state a
word about any act of the Petitioner which is calculated to cause any harm
to the person or the property of any person.
46. The Petitioner, however, in his defence, had examined one witness
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, who had deposed that the Petitioner has been residing in
the locality peacefully and the members of the locality do not have any
Complaints against him.
47. In the case of Deepak (supra), Apex Court observed there must be
objective material on record on the basis of which the competent Authority
may record its subjective satisfaction that the movements or acts of such
person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the
persons or property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 14 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
48. No evidence has been led nor any circumstance spelled on behalf of
the Respondent to show that movement of the Petitioner is an imminent
threat to the members of the locality or their property.
(ii) Reasonable grounds that he would be engaged in the commission of
an offence:
49. Section 47 (b) states that Order of Externment may be passed if there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is going to commit the
offence by using force or violence or the offence under Chapter XII,
Chapter, XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII IPC or the abetment thereof.
50. In the case of Deepak (Supra), Apex Court observed that there must
also be subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of
offences involving force or violence of offences punishable under Chapter
XII, XVI or XVII IPC.
51. However, in the entire pleadings or the detailed Order of the learned
Additional DCP, there is no mention of there being any apprehension of
imminent commission of the offences as detailed hereinabove.
(iii) He is so desperate and dangerous that his being at large would be
hazardous to the community:
52. The only evidence led to the statement made by the Prosecution
witness Inspector Devinder Singhthat there is likelihood of him to indulge
in such offences in future too. Further, the citizens were not willing to come
forward to give evidence against him due to apprehension to the safety of
their person and property at the hands of the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 15 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
53. The only instance which can be gathered from the record is FIR
No.512/22 under S. 195A/34 IPC which was in regard to an incident of
2019 and was registered after three and a half years.
54. Additional DCP, in the Impugned Order of Externment, referred to
the Statements of witnesses recorded by him in camera, who were not
willing to come forward to make Statements in public, against the Petitioner
due to the apprehension with regard to the safety of their person and
property.
55. In the present case, while it has been deposed by Inspector Devinder
Singh that such an assessment was made from the testimony of the
witnesses recorded in camera, but aside from making bald assertions, it does
not explain how his conduct is hazardous to the community. The only
statement made was that the witnesses were not coming forth to depose
against him,but the testimony is not supported by any details of the cases in
which the witnesses were not forth coming. From the Criminal Cases
against him, it is not believable that there are witnesses, who are required to
appear against him or that they have any apprehension of harm or danger to
their person or property, which is deterring them to come forth to depose
against the Petitioner. Though they deposed so in camera, but no
circumstances are detailed for such alleged apprehension. The most
significant aspect is that no case or FIR or investigations are mentioned in
respect of which they are not forth coming.
56. In the case of Deepak (Supra), it was observed that when Clause (b)
of Section 49 is sought to be invoked to assert that the witnesses are not
willing to come forward against the Petitioner, the competent authority must
be satisfied on the basis of some material on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 16 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
57. Merely by making assertions that there is a satisfaction of persons not
coming forth to make the Statements in Public against the Petitioner, would
not be sufficient to satisfy the threshold of Clause (b) of Section 49 thereby
meriting the Order of Externment.
58. The main ground for the Prosecution to come to the conclusion of
Petitioner being desperate and dangerous, are the five FIRs that were
registered against him. In the Case of Deepak (Supra), it was observed that,
even if multiple offences have been registered against an individual, that
itself would not be sufficient to pass an Order of Externment against him.
59. In the present case, what to talk of subjective satisfaction, in fact the
basic averments are found missing to justify the action of Externment.
60. In the case of Prem Chand vs. Union of India (Supra), the Apex
Court observed that Section 47 and 50 must be read strictly. Any police
apprehension is not enough for passing the Order of Externment. Some
ground or the other, also is not adequate. There must be a clear and present
danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts
of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.
Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person
proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in
the locality or any other part thereof is hazardous to the community and its
safety. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid the easy possibility
of abuse of this process power to the detriment of the fundamental powers.
It was further observed that the principles of natural justice must be fairly
complied with and the vague allegations and secret hearings are gross
violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 17 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
61. Such sketchy evidence is not sufficient to establish that Petitioner is
desperate or dangerous or that his letting being at large, would be hazardous
for the Community.
(iv)Habitually intimidating or is habitually committing affray or breach of
peace or habitually passing indecent remarks on women:
62. The main ground around which the entire proceedings under S.47 DP
Act revolves are the Five FIRs registered against the Petitioner since 2015
to claim that he is a Habitual Offender.
63. The terms Habitual has been explained in Explanation to Section
47, which reads as under:-
“Explanation: A person who during a period within one year
immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this
Section has been found on not less than three occasions to have
committed or to have been invoked in any of the acts referred to in this
section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.”
64. From the very definition of the word „habitual‟ as given in the
Explanation to Section 47, it is evident that in the year preceding to the
commencement of an action, it must be found that on not less than three
occasions, the person has committed or has been involved in any of the acts
referred to in this Section.
65. There are five FIRs, which have been detailed against the Petitioner.
Two are of 2015 under Section 341/323/506/34 IPC, Police Station Seema
Puri. One FIR No. 462/2016 is also under the similar Sections, registered on
27.12.2016 at Police Station GTB Enclave. The next FIR bearing FIR
No.14/2017 is under Section 307/323/506/34/1/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of
Arms Act at Police Station GTB Enclave. The last FIR is 512/2022 under
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 18 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
Section 195A/34 IPC dated 19.11.2022 registered at Police Station Anand
Vihar.
66. The proceedings as per the Order of the DCP dated 15.07.2024, were
initiated on 25.11.2023 thereby establishing that in the preceding year i.e.
in the year 25.11.2022 to 25.12.2023, there is not even a single FIR that has
been registered. In these circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be held to be
habitual offender and cannot be held liable for Externment under Section 47
(c) (ii) to (iv) of D.P. Act.
(v) Additional Ground of being a Bad Character:
67. The DCP in this Order of Externment, also referred to the Petitioner
being a „Bad Character of Bundle-A‟ of Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi.
However, it has been contended by the Petitioner that this was never a part
of the Notice served upon him under Section 50 and, therefore, he had no
opportunity to counter the same. There are no details of when the Petitioner
was declared a Bad Character or the circumstances in which he was put in
Bundle-A of Police Station Seema Puri.
68. It is further observed in the Impugned Order that due to his
continuous and persistent activities, the Petitioner is hazardous to the
society. Again while reiterating the language of Section 49, no
circumstances have been showed to explain the term “continuous and
persistent activities”, which makes him hazardous to the society.
69. Pertinently, the two FIRs of 2015 already stand concluded. The other
two FIRs are of 2016 and 2017 respectively. The last FIR is of 2022, which
is also in respect of an incident, which was reported in the year 2019. The
last FIR that was registered against him was prior to one year from the
commencement of Externment proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 19 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29
Conclusion:
70. Considering the nature and power under Section 56 of D.P. Act, the
Competent Authority is not expected to write a Judgment containing
elaborate reasons, but the subjective satisfaction of the Competent
Authority, must be reflected in the reasons given to satisfy any of the
grounds under Section 56 of D.P. Act, which rests on objective material
placed on record. The application of mind must be evident from the Order.
The Court considering the Externment Order, cannot question the
sufficiency of material on which the subjective satisfaction has been
recorded, but the Court can always consider whether there existed any
material on the basis of which, subjective satisfaction has been recorded.
The Courts are well within the jurisdiction to interfere when either there is
no material or the relevant material has not been considered.
71. It is evident that the Impugned Order, which is essentially quasi-
judicial in nature, is bereft of any material, logic or reason.
Result:
72. The Externment Order dated 15.07.2024, issued by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, Shahdara District, Delhi, is hereby set-
aside.
73. The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. All the
pending Application(s) also stand disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 27, 2025/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA W.P.(CRL) 77/2025 Page 20 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
12:38:29