M. K. Chawla,j. ( 1 ) THE Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Districtserved a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, on the petitionerto show cause why he be not externed from the limits of the Union Territoryof Delhi for a period of 2 years, on the allegations that since 1975, he isengaged in the commission of illegal acts and offences against body, riot andbreach of peace which are causing or calculating to cause alarm, danger orharm to the persons or their property ; that he is involved in 5 cases under thevarious provisions of the Indian Penal Code; that his activities are greatmenace to the society at large ; and that he is so desperate and dangerouswhich renders his being at large in the Union Territory of Delhi or any partthereof hazardous to the community. ( 2 ) THE petitioner sent the reply to the show cause notice denying theallegations. He also led evidence in support of his innocence and false implication in the cases mentioned in the said notice. Shri. A. K. Kanth, the thendeputy Commissioner of Police, vide order dated 3. 8. 83, directed the petitionerto remove himself beyond the limits of the Union Tettitory of Delhi for aperiod of three months via Shahdara border. He was, however, permitted toattend courts at New Delhi/delhi on all days of hearing of the cases pendingagainst him in the courts on the condition that on all days on conclusion ofhearing, he shall immediately remove himself outside the limits of Unionterritory of Delhi and shall not visit any other place in Delhi except the courtpremises. The petitioner filed an appeal u/s 51 of the Delhi Police Act whichwas heard and rejected by the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 17. 9. 1983. Thesevery two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition seeking anappropriate direction or order for the quashing of the notice, the order of thedeputy Commissioner of Police and confirmed by the Lt Governor of Delhi. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in brief is thatthe authorities below went wrong in forming an opinion about the desperateand dangerous character of the petitioner, without there being any evidence insupport of the same inasmuch as he was discharged in four out of five casescited in the show cause notice. The last one is still subjudice. The last one is still subjudice. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the State is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police took into consideration the over all activities of the petitionerand rightly came to the conclusion that his continued presence in the Unionterritory of Delhi would prove hazardous to the community. The impugnedorder which has become ineffective does not call for any interference. ( 4 ) AFTER giving my carefully consideration to the facts and circumstancesplaced and proved on the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned orderof the Deputy Commissioner of Police and that of the Lt. Governor of Delhiconfirming the same, are liable to be quashed. In the show cause notice, thepetitioner is shown involved in the following cases : 1. FIR No. 439 dt. 16. 5. 75 u/s 147/148/149/ipc, Police Stationpahar Ganj. 2. F. I. R. No. 250 dt. 12. 5. 78 u/s 363 IPC, P. S. Sarai Rohilla. 3. DD No. 15 dt. 23. 3. 82 u/s 107/150 Cr. P. O. , P. S. P. Ganj. 4. DD No. 22-A dt. 5. 12. 82 u/s 107/150 Cr. P. C, P. S. P. Ganj. 5. FIR No. 1270 dt. 8. 12. 82 u/s 324/34/307/34 IPC, P. S. P. Ganj. It is not denied that in the first four cases, the petitioner has been discharged. The last case is pending trial. In this case, the petitioner was released onanticipatory bail. Even though his stand is that he was falsely implicated at theinstance of one Dr. Rayees Khan, but till the outcome of the trial, no opinioncan be expressed. The fact, however, remains that till today the petitioner hasnever been convicted of any offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other Act. ( 5 ) DURING the show cause proceedings, the petitioner also producedmany respectables of the area who deposed about his good conduct and certified him to be a peace-loving citizen of the area. Beyond that, the respondents have not led any material on record to suggest that the witnesses are notwilling to come forward to give evidence in the public against the petitionerby reason of apprehension of danger to their person and property. In fact,there could not be such an evidence as he was not being tried for the commission of any offence. At the time of the passing of impugned order, the last casewas at the investigation stage. In fact,there could not be such an evidence as he was not being tried for the commission of any offence. At the time of the passing of impugned order, the last casewas at the investigation stage. Prima facie, the essential ingredients to bringthe case within the purview of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act have not beenproved or complied with. ( 6 ) NO other point has been urged nor requires going into. In theresult, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 3. 8. 83 and that of the Lt. Governor of Delhi dated17. 9. 83 confirming the same, are hereby quashed.