LT. GOVERNOR, NCT AND ORS . versus VED PRAKASH @ VEDU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT AND ORS . 
A 
v. 
VED PRAKASH @ VEDU 
MAY 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN. JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Police Act, 1978-Sections 47, 48 and 50-0rder of externment-
Proceedee challenging order by filing writ petition-Interference by courts-
Scope of-Held, order must demonstrate application of mind by statutory c 
authority and it should be based on material-Satisfaction of authority although 
subjective should be based on objectivity-Sufficiency of material or possibility 
of another view may not be a ground for interference-Court may examine 
records to satisfy itself that all procedural safeguards have been followed and 
also that witnesses have disclosed apprehensions about deposing in Court 
because of activities of the proceedee-Court not to direct authority to disclose D 
names of witnesses or the details of such cases-/ n the facts, held, order of 
,• 
externment rightly passed and does not call for interference by Court. 
Various criminal cases were instituted by the appellants against the 
respondent. Appellants initiated externment proceeding against respondent 
E 
in terms of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 on the ground that his 
movements and acts had been causing alarm, danger and harm to person 
and property and also issued a supplementary notice in continuation of 
the earlier notice under Section 50 of the 1978 Act. An order of externment 
was passed against the respondent directing his removal beyond the limits 
I 
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years with F 
effect from 13.4.2004. Respondent challenged order of externment by filing 
writ petition. High Court allowed writ petition and set aside order of 
externment on the ground that principles of natural justice had been 
violated as the show cause notice did not disclose names of witnesses who 
were said to be reluctant or did not come forward to depose against_ the 
G 
respondent on account of fear and also the appellants did not disclose the 
r 
cases in which witnesses had not deposed against the respondent out of 
fear or because of threat, etc. 
-~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
927 
H 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006[ SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : I. The law operating in the field is no longer res integra 
B 
c 
D 
E 
which may hereinafter be noticed: 
(i) in a proceeding under the Act all statutory and constitutional 
requirements must he fulfilled. 
(ii) An externment proceeding having regard to the purport and 
object thereof, cannot be equated with a preventive detention matter. 
(iii) Before an order of externment is passed, the proceedee is entitled 
to an opportunity of hearing. 
(iv) The test of procedural safeguards contained in the Act must be 
scrupulously complied with. 
(v) The satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective 
criteria. 
(vi) A proceeding under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act stands on 
a different footing than the ordinary proceeding in the sense that whereas 
in the latter the details of the evidence are required to be disclosed and, 
thus, giving an opportunity to the proceedee to deal with them, in the 
former, general allegations would serve the purpose. (938-A-El 
2. An order of externment must always be restricted to the area of 
illegal activities of the externee. The executive order must demonstrate 
due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority. When the 
validity of an order is questioned, what would be seen is the material on 
F 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 
G view may not be a ground for interference. It is not a case where malice 
was alleged against the third Appellant. [939-A-CI 
State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Sanjeev Alias Bittoo, (20051 5 SCC 
181 and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (200317 SCC 330, 
H relied on. 
., 
•. 
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT v. VED PRAKASH @ VEDU 
929 
!It 
3.1. The High Court and this Court would undoubtedly jealously A 
guard the fundamental rights of a citizen. While exercising the jurisdiction 
rested in them invariably, the courts would make all attempts 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.