Mr. Beni Prasad Rathore, Advocate (through VC) v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA % O R D E R 09.01.2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) on behalf of petitioner for quashing of impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Delhi Police whereby an externment order was passed against the Petitioner for a period of one year, directing her to be externed from the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year within 7 days from the passing of the said order.

2. The petition also impugns the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 1 of 6 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 15:37:10 whereby externment period was reduced from one year to eight months, keeping in view the nature of offences and the health of the Petitioner.

3. In brief, externment proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Delhi Police by issuing of show-cause notice under Section 47 read with Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘D.P. Act’) on the basis of her involvement in thirteen (13) FIRs under JJ Act1, Excise Act2 and NDPS Act3. The activities of the Petitioner were further stated to be hazardous to the community. The order records that the Petitioner has been characterized as Bad Character of Bundle-A of P.S Mayur Vihar, Delhi. In these facts, Respondent no. 2 considered that Petitioner is a fit person to be externed from the limits of N.C.T of Delhi vide impugned order dated

27.06.2024.

4. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 27.06.2024 under Section 51 of D.P Act before Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi, wherein vide order dated 03.09.2024 after reviewing the material on record the Appellate Authority upheld the order dated 27.06.2024. However, keeping in view the fact that the cases registered against the Petitioner though 13 in number, were not heinous in nature, the Appellate Authority keeping in view of the physical/medical condition of the Petitioner reduced the externment period was from one year to eight months.

5. The period of eight months is due to expire in February, 2025 and the 1 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 2 Delhi Excise Act 2009 3 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 2 of 6 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 15:37:10 Petitioner has served out about 6½ months already.

6. It is stated that Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the cases registered against her and she has not indulged in any criminal activities. It is stated that the Petitioner was earning her livelihood peacefully through running a shop of General Store at her house. It is stated that out of the 13 cases registered against her, she has already been acquitted in 09 cases and 4 cases are still pending trial before the Trial Court.

7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the impugned orders dated 27.06.2024 and 03.09.2024 record the facts and evidence which led to passing of the orders. She states that not only the Petitioner is classified as a Bad Character of Bundle-A but even her husband Suresh Tuian is characterized as a Bad Character of P.S.: Mayur Vihar, Phase-I. She states that due opportunity to show cause in writing was granted to the Petitioner before the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 was passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I.

8. This Court has heard the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

9. The Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra4 while hearing a challenge to an externment order passed under Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 held that judicial review of the externment order can be entertained on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The Supreme Court held that while testing the externment order the Court cannot go into the question of sufficiency of material based on which the Comptent Authority has passed the externment order. The relevant portion 4 (2023) 14 SCC 707 W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 3 of 6 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 15:37:10 of the order reads as under:

12. Considering the nature of the power under Section 56, the competent authority is not expected to write a judgment containing elaborate reasons. However, the competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction of the existence of one of the grounds in sub-section (1) of Section 56 on the basis of objective material placed before it. Though the competent authority is not required to record reasons on a par with a judicial order, when challenged, the competent authority must be in a position to show the application of mind. The court while testing the order of externment cannot go into the question of sufficiency of material based on which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded. However, the court can always consider whether there existed any material on the basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been recorded. The court can interfere when either there is no material or the relevant material has not been considered. The court cannot interfere because there is a possibility of another view being taken. As in the case of any other administrative order, the judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. (‘Emphasis Supplied’)

10. It is contended in the petition that the impugned order is bad as there was no evidence against the Petitioner. It is further stated that the cases filed against the Petitioner do not pertain to moral turpitude and thus would not adversely affect the society at large.

11. The said contention of the Petitioner is without any merits. There are trials pending against the Petitioner in two cases under NDPS Act and separately two cases under JJ Act read with Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The pending cases have all been registered during the period 2016 to 2023.

12. It would also be relevant to refer to the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Monika v. State NCT of Delhi and W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 4 of 6 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 15:37:10 Others5 wherein while declining to interfere with the externment order, learned Single Judge held that the menace of bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act is a big menace and needs to be curbed with a heavy hand.

13. In the past, there were 9 cases filed under Excise Act, JJ Act and NDPS Act which resulted in acquittal. Out of these 9 cases, 8 cases were filed against the Petitioner between 2001 and 2007. One case filed under JJ Act in the year 2017 has resulted in acquittal.

14. The multiple cases filed against the Petitioner successively over a period of time show her propensity to routine her indulgence in the illegal acts and more specifically with respect to Excise Act and NDPS Act. In the facts of this case, the finding returned by the competent authority is based on material placed before it and it is not a case where there was no material before the competent authority to arrive at the findings resulting in the externment order.

15. A perusal of the record shows that principles of natural justice have been duly followed before passing of the orders dated 26.07.2024 and

03.09.2024. The Petitioner was given due written notice by the authorities and the findings returned are based on material available on record. A compassionate view due to her medical condition has already been taken by the Appellate Authority by reducing the period of externment from one year to eight months. Moreover, as noted hereinabove, the Petitioner has already removed herself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi in July, 2024 and period of eight months is scheduled to expire in February, 2025. 5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7066 at para 16 W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 5 of 6 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 15:37:10

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

17. Pending applications also stands disposed of. JANUARY 9, 2025/mt/ms MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(CRL) 3041/2024 Page 6 of 6 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 15:37:10