2005 (4) TMI 572 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether pre- requisites for passing an order under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act 1978 were not available?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and Ambit of Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
2. Validity of the externment order under Section 47 of the Act.
3. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978:
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. This section provides the grounds on which an order under Section 47 can be questioned before any court. It states that an order passed by the Commissioner of Police or the Administrator shall not be called into question except on specific grounds such as non-compliance with procedural requirements or lack of material evidence.

2. Validity of the Externment Order under Section 47 of the Act:
The externment order issued on 20.5.2002 required the respondent to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Section 47. The Deputy Commissioner of Police cited several illegal activities and the reluctance of witnesses to testify due to fear. The respondent did not provide a written reply but appeared and examined a witness to prove his innocence. Subsequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered the respondent to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for one year. This order was challenged and quashed by the Delhi High Court, which noted that the pre-requisites for passing an order under Section 47 were not met. The High Court emphasized that the authority must clearly indicate why one of the three available options was adopted.

3. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The Supreme Court discussed the scope of judicial review in administrative decisions. It highlighted that judicial review is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The Court referred to several precedents, including Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Gazi Sududdin v. State of Maharashtra, to emphasize that the existence of material, not its sufficiency, is the key factor. The Court noted that the satisfaction of the authority can be questioned if it is demonstratively perverse, based on no evidence, or if the person concerned was not given due opportunity. The Court also clarified that the authority's decision should indicate the existence of some material warranting the order of externment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was not justified in quashing the externment order. The appeal was heard to clarify certain doubtful areas, and the Court emphasized that the existence of material and the proper application of discretion are crucial in such cases. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.