2080 , 2005 (Suppl. ) ACC 402 , 2005 (2 )ALT(Cri)139 , 2005 (5 )ALT1 (SC ), II (2005 )CCR85 (SC ), 2005 CriLJ2179 , 2005 (2 )Crimes70 (SC ), 118 (2005 )DLT710 (SC ), 2005 INSC 180 , [2005 (2 )JCR228 (SC )], JT2005 (4 )SC 109 , 2005 (3 )PLJR1 , (2005 )5 SCC181 , [2005 ]1 SCR151 , ,MANU/SC/0257/2005Arijit Pasayat#S.H. Kapadia#2214SC2210Judgment/OrderAIC#AIR#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALT (Criminal)#ALT#CCR#CriLJ#Crimes#DLT#INSC#JCR#JT#MANU#PLJR#SCC#SCRArijit Pasayat,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Statutes conferring power; Express and Implied conditions; Judicial Review,Mandatory And Directory Provisions,Subsidiary Rules,Implied Conditions and Judicial Review,Statutes conferring power; Express and Implied conditions; Judicial Review,Mandatory And Directory Provisions,Subsidiary Rules,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Constitution of India,Interpretation of Statutes3506,3505,3502,3507,16108,3501,3503,10489,3515,3513 -->

MANU/SC/0257/2005

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1492 of 2004)

Decided On: 04.04.2005

Appellants: State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Sanjeev

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The true scope and ambit of Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act') falls for determination. Notice dated 20.5.2002, was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South-West) District, New Delhi, under Section 50 of the Act requiring the notice to show cause as to why action in terms of Section 47 of the Act should not be taken against him. In the notice it was noted that since March 1997 he was engaged in several illegal acts in his activities and movement in the area of P.S. Dwarka, were causing alarm to the residents. List of 7 cases under various penal statutes on the basis of the records of the concerned police station was given. It was indicated that the witnesses including camera witnesses were not willing to give evidence in public against him because of the fear of danger to their person and properties. There was no written reply to the notice, but the notice appeared and examined a witness to show that he was innocent. After the grant of further opportunities appellant No. 5-Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an order under Section 47 of the Act directing that the respondent should remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year w.e.f. 25.12.2002. He was permitted to attend the courts at Delhi on all the dates of hearing and thereafter immediately remove himself out of the limits of NCT of Delhi, but not to visit any place except courts premises. The relaxation was only for the date of hearing for the cases before the Courts. The contents of the order were explained to him and a copy was also delivered to him.

3. The order was challenged before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi who rejected the appeal under Section 51 of the Act.

4. A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge quashed the order observing that pre-requisite........