TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Puri Whereas the Respondent was convicted in relation to the instances and/ or the first information reports detailed at Sr. No. 4 and 9 hereof, in other cases, he was acquitted except in the cases detailed at Sr. Nos. 1 and 10 under Sections 308/34 and 458/323/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code respectively which are said to be still pending. In the show cause notice issued to the Respondent, it was alleged: "That your movement and acts causing and calculated to cause alarm, danger harm to the person or property. There are reasonable grounds to believe that you engage or likely to engage in the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII, XXII or IPC. Is it a fact that you were not involved in a single isolated incident but indulged in criminal activities since 1982 and continued and dangerous so as to render you being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof is hazardous to the community. That the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. There are reasonable grounds to believe that you are likely to engage yourself in the commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner 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 tit, 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 specify 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. 48. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.-- If a person has been convicted (a) of an offence under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson shall be entitled to be represented in the proceeding before the Commissioner of Police by a counsel. (5) (a) The Commissioner of Police may for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 46, section 47 or section 48 require such person, by order in writing, to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for attendance during the inquiry. (b) The provisions of sections 119 to 124 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the order under clause (a) to furnish security bond. (6) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner of Police, while issuing notice to any person under sub-section (2) may issue a warrant for his arrest and the provisions of sections 70 to 89 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such warrant. (7) The provisions of section 445, section 446, section 447 or section 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to all bonds executed under this section." The proposal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisals witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. That explains why Section 59 of the Act imposes but a limited obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee "of the general nature of the material allegations against him". That obligation fixes the limits of the co-relative right of the proposed externee. He is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under Section 56, to know the material allegations against him and the general nature of those allegations. He is not entitled to be informed of specific particulars relating to the material allegations." The Court referring to its earlier decision in Hari Khemu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Another [1956 SCR 506] and State of Gujarat v. Mehboob Khan Osman Khan [1968 (3) SCR 746] rejected the contention that the notice issued against the externee was vague. As regards points (iii) and (iv), as noticed hereinbefore, it was stated: "14. The third and fourth point have the same answer as the second point just dealt with by us. Precisely for the reasons for wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them suitably. In the light of these, I am of the opinion that the charges and grounds detailed in the show cause notices are not vague or vitiated." However, having held so, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the matter as to whether there existed any evidence in support of the allegations made against the externee or not. It relied upon a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Bhim Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Anr. [2002 (2) JCC 1132] and opined that in view of the fact that in the show cause notice in regard to the criminal cases the names of the witnesses who were said to be reluctant to or did not come forward to depose against the Respondent on account of fear, had not been disclosed, the principles of natural justice have been violated. It was further held that the authorities had not applied their mind stating: "This minimal requirement of objective material, as well as application of mind to it is vitally necessary in opinion formation under Section 47 of the Act. As the decision in Ishaque suggests, the record should clearly suggest or support the satisfaction and should show in which cases the witnesses had declined to appear on account of apprehensi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....validity of an order is questioned, what would be seen is the material on which the satisfaction of the authority is based. The satisfaction of the authority although primarily subjective, should be based on objectivity. But Sufficiency of material as such may not be gone into by the writ court unless it is found that in passing the impugned order the authority has failed to take into consideration the relevant facts or had based its decision on irrelevant factors not germane therefor. Mere possibility of another view may not be a ground for interference. It is not a case where malice was alleged against the third Appellant. The High Court and this Court would undoubtedly jealously guard the fundamental rights of a citizen. While exercising the jurisdiction rested in them invariably, the courts would make all attempts to uphold the human right of the proceedee. The fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India undoubtedly must be safeguarded. But while interpreting the provisions of a statute like the present one and in view of the precedents operating in the field, the court may examine the records itself so as to satisfy its conscience not only for the purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem as a result of which a terror was created in the minds of the residents of Manjurpura, Harsh Nagar and Lota Karanja areas. That he was communal and spreading hatred amongst the communities. It was also stated by him that he had given beating to him and threatened him that if he did not help him in teaching a lesson to the Hindu community then he would not spare his life." It was further held: "Primarily, the satisfaction has to be of the authority passing the order. If the satisfaction recorded by the authority is objective and is based on the material on record then the courts would not interfere with the order passed by the authority only because another view possibly can be taken. Such satisfaction of the authority can be interfered with only if the satisfaction recorded is either demonstratively perverse based on no evidence, misreading of evidence or which a reasonable person could not form or that the person concerned was not given due opportunity resulting in prejudicing his rights under the Act." Even in Sanjeev Alias Bittoo (supra), it was observed: "Section 47 consists of two parts. First part relates to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police or an....