Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta, Advocate v. HON BLE LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS

W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 1 of 12 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 120/2025, CRL.M.A. 1035-1036/2025 MS BANNI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta, Advocate. versus HON BLE LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocates for State with Mr. Anil, SI, PS-Sarojni Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 16.01.2025 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, assailing order of externment dated 26th February, 2024 passed in File No. 27/2021 as well as the order in appeal dated 22nd May, 2024 in Case No. 73/2024. By virtue of the impugned orders, the Petitioner has been directed to remove herself beyond the limits of the NCT of Delhi for a period of one and a half years from the date of the externment order. 2. The background leading to the filing of the present case in brief is as follows: 2.1. The proposal for Petitioner’s externement under the Delhi Police Act, 19781 was submitted by the SHO, Sarojni Nagar through ACP, Safdarjung Enclave, based on her involvement in committing offences related to 1 “DPA” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 2 of 12 property and person. At the time of the proposal, three FIRs had been registered against the Petitioner under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act at the Sarojini Nagar Police Station, as noted in the impugned externment order. 2.2 After the initiation of externment proceedings on 24th August, 2021, the number of cases against the Petitioner increased rather than subsided. By the time the proceedings were concluded and the externment order was passed, a total of nine FIRs had been registered against the Petitioner, six of which were pending trial, while three were still under investigation. 2.3 Considering these facts, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned externment order, directing the Petitioner to remain outside the territorial limits of the NCT of Delhi for two years. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 4 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 6 of 12 2.4 Aggrieved by the aforementioned externment order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, before Respondent No. 1. Upon consideration, the appellate authority reduced the period of externment from two years to one and a half years, but otherwise upheld the decision of Respondent No. 2. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on several grounds. First, he contends that proceedings initiated under the Delhi Excise Act, 1955, cannot form a valid basis for an externment order under the Delhi Police Act, as the alleged offences do not indicate any immediate or significant threat to public safety or property. The Counsel emphasizes that the Petitioner has not been convicted in any of the twelve cases cited in the externment proceedings, with several of these cases still under investigation and others pending trial. He asserts that an externment order premised solely on pending cases cannot be sustained in law, particularly in the absence of any adjudicated guilt. The Counsel further submits that the externment proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 7 of 12 natural justice. He points out that the Petitioner was not informed of her right to legal representation during the proceedings, nor was she provided with access to legal counsel despite the prolonged nature of the hearings before Respondent No. 2. This, he argues, is a gross violation of her constitutional and procedural rights. Moreover, he contends that while the impugned order makes references to the Petitioner’s alleged involvement in twelve cases, the complete documents pertaining to these cases, including FIRs or chargesheets, were never furnished to the Petitioner. Consequently, she was deprived of the opportunity to effectively challenge or rebut the allegations against her. Counsel argues that the externment proceedings appear arbitrary, as several of the referenced cases remain under investigation, and the lack of specific findings renders the decision unsustainable. 4. Counsel also challenges the credibility of the evidence relied upon in the externment proceedings. He highlights that the witnesses examined in support of the allegations against the Petitioner were exclusively police officers, and no independent witnesses from the community were brought forward. He asserts that no efforts were made to examine individuals who could corroborate the claim that the Petitioner’s presence in the locality posed a danger to public safety or property. The absence of independent testimony, coupled with the failure of Respondents to substantiate why public witnesses allegedly refrained from coming forward, undermines the fairness of the proceedings. Moreover, the Respondents have not provided specific details of the witnesses, further diminishing the probative value of the evidence relied upon. The Counsel emphasizes that the Petitioner has lived in Delhi with her family for a considerable time and is a law-abiding citizen. The impugned externment order, he contends, imposes This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 8 of 12 disproportionate prejudice on the Petitioner by uprooting her from her residence and subjecting her to significant social and economic hardship. He urges the Court to intervene, as the order is not only procedurally flawed but also fails to meet the substantive requirements under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. 5. Counsel for the Respondents vehemently disputes the contentions raised by the Petitioner. She submits that the impugned orders demonstrate that the Petitioner was provided with multiple opportunities to present her case, including the option to avail legal assistance, which she wilfully chose to forgo. The Respondents argue that the Petitioner’s claims of procedural impropriety lack merit, as the record reflects adequate compliance with principles of natural justice. The Counsel further contends that the Petitioner’s habitual involvement in criminal activities, as evidenced by her repeated violations under the Delhi Excise Act, fulfils the statutory criteria outlined in Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Emphasizing the cumulative impact of the twelve FIRs registered against the Petitioner, including six cases pending trial and three under active investigation, she argues that the Petitioner’s continued presence in the community poses a serious threat to public safety and the maintenance of law and order. Respondents assert that the Petitioner’s characterization of the cases as “minor” ignores the pattern of persistent unlawful conduct, which has led to alarm and apprehension among local residents. The Counsel also highlights that public witnesses were unwilling to come forward due to fears of retaliation, highlighting the Petitioner’s adverse influence within her locality. In such circumstances, the Respondents maintain that the externment order was both necessary and proportionate, aiming to protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens while addressing the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 9 of 12 Petitioner’s disruptive behaviour. 6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner but finds them devoid of merit. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Petitioner was afforded ample opportunities to present her case at every stage of the proceedings. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner initially filed a reply to the notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which was duly taken into account. Despite this, she failed to produce any defence witnesses, even after being granted multiple opportunities to do so. Further, supplementary notices issued on 27th December, 2022 and 10th February, 2024 directed the Petitioner to submit a written response to the allegations. However, her failure to comply with these notices and the absence of any written defence suggests either a lack of substantive rebuttal or wilful disregard for the proceedings. Such omissions carry implications, as they reinforce the credibility of the Respondents’ case against her. The impugned order also notes that the Petitioner was repeatedly advised to engage legal counsel to assist her, either at her own expense or through the free legal aid services of the Delhi Legal Services Authority at Patiala House Courts. Despite this, she elected to proceed without representation and argued her case personally. The Court finds that this decision cannot be construed as a denial of her right to legal representation but rather as her deliberate choice to forgo such assistance. Thus, there is no merit in the Petitioner’s claim that there has been a denial of natural justice. 7. The Petitioner’s contention that cases registered under the Excise Act do not warrant the invocation of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, lacks legal and factual support. She has neither cited any binding judicial precedent nor pointed to any statutory provision that exempts such cases This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 10 of 12 from forming the basis of externment proceedings. The mere categorization of offences under the Excise Act does not, in itself, negate their relevance under the provisions of the DPA, particularly when the cumulative effect of the Petitioner’s activities is alleged to pose a threat to public safety and order. 8. The Petitioner’s objection regarding the reliance on the testimony of police officers is equally untenable. The proceedings under Section 47 of the DPA are inherently preventive in nature and aim to address the potential harm posed by individuals whose conduct raises substantial concerns. As the police officers were directly involved in investigating the Petitioner’s activities, their testimony was not only relevant but also critical to the determination of her conduct and criminal tendencies. The absence of testimony from independent witnesses does not vitiate the proceedings, especially when the record demonstrates that public witnesses were unwilling to come forward out of fear or apprehension for their safety, as noted in the impugned order. The Petitioner cannot now fault the examination process for being limited to police officers, given the nature of the proceedings and the circumstances involved. 9. The Petitioner’s grievance regarding the alleged non-supply of documents also appears to lack merit. With respect to the six cases currently pending trial, it is reasonable to assume that the relevant documents, including the charge sheets and supporting evidence, are already in her possession, as they form the basis of the ongoing proceedings. As for the remaining three cases still under investigation, the Petitioner had the opportunity to request access to the relevant documents during the course of the externment proceedings. However, the record does not reflect any such request on her part. Her failure to take proactive steps to secure these This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 11 of 12 documents further undermines her argument. Thus, the claim of procedural prejudice due to non-supply of documents is not substantiated. 10. The facts of the case, as elaborated in the impugned order, unequivocally establish the Petitioner’s repeated involvement in criminal activities. At the time the proceedings were initiated in 2021, the Petitioner was already implicated in multiple cases. By the time the externment order was passed, the number of registered cases had increased, reflecting a consistent pattern of conduct detrimental to public safety and order. Such conduct justifies preventive measures under Section 47 of the DPA. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev @ Bittoo,2 whereby the Court deliberated on the scope of judicial intervention with respect to externment orders. The relevant portion of the said judgement is as follows: “23. Though Section 52 limits the scope of consideration by the courts, the scope for judicial review in writ jurisdiction is not restricted, subject of course to the parameters indicated supra. 24. It is true that some material must exist but what is required is not an elaborate decision akin to a judgment. On the contrary the order directing externment should show existence of some material warranting an order of externment. While dealing with the question mere repetition of the provision would not be sufficient. Reference is to be made to some material on record and if that is done, the requirements of law are met. As noted above, it is not the sufficiency of material but the existence of material which is sine qua non. 25. As observed in Gazi Saduddin case [(2003) 7 SCC 330 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1637] satisfaction of the authority can be interfered with if the satisfaction recorded is demonstratively perverse based on no evidence, misreading of evidence or which a reasonable man could not form or that the person concerned was not given due opportunity resulting in prejudice. To that extent, objectivity is inbuilt in the subjective satisfaction of the authority.” [Emphasis Supplied] 11. Applying this principle to the present case, it is evident that the 2 (2005) 5 SCC 181. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:37:05 W.P.(CRL) 120/2025 Page 12 of 12 Respondents acted within their statutory authority. The material on record demonstrates her habitual criminal behaviour. The Petitioner is listed as a “bad character” in bundle “A” at PS Sarojni Nagar, Delhi, and has been found to be involved in several criminal cases during the course of these proceedings. The competent authority, after considering the materials on record, concluded that the Petitioner was involved in multiple criminal cases. The authority found that the Petitioner’s presence in the community was hazardous to the society. The authority, therefore, concluded that stronger measures needed to be taken to address the Petitioner’s activities and prevent further harm. 12. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court finds no reason to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a prerogative writ of mandamus to interfere with the externment order. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed along with pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 16, 2025 nk