Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) The petitioner is a resident of Delhi. Following notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should nto be externed from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years :- "UNDER Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you to proceedings against you under sections 55, 56 and 57 of the said Act (Score out the figures nto wanted).

(3) In order to give you an opportunity of tendering your explanation regarding the said allegations and to show cause why you should nto be externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years, I have appointed 2-00 P.M. on 16-12-1966 to receive your explanation and to hear you and your witnesses, if any, in regard to the said allegations. I, Rajendra Jain, Ias, A.D.M., therefore, require you to appear before me at Room No. 40, New Courts Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi on the said date, viz. on l6-12-1966"at 2-00 P.M. for the said purpose and to pass a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with one surety in like amount for your attendance during the said proceedings. Should you fail to appear before me and to pass the bond as directed above, I shall proceed with the inquiry in your absence. Take note. "ALLEGATIONS

(11) Applying the above test, we find that the only offences relating to gambling which could justify the experiment of a previous convict Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act were those under sections 4 and 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Section 4 of the Bombay Act relates to opening and keeping of a common gaming house, while section 12A deals with a person who prints, publishes, sells, distributes or circulates any newspapers, news-sheet or other document or any news or information with the intention of aiding or facilitating gaming. There is no provision in the Delhi Public Gambling Act corresponding to section 12A of the Bombay Act. Section 3 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act corresponds to section 4 of the Bombay Act because both deal with a person keeping a common gaming house. Section 57 of the Bobmay Police Act as extended to Delhi makes convictions for offences under any of the provisions of the Delhi Public Gambling Act a ground for externment from Delhi. The provisions of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act as extended to Delhi thus go much beyond the provisions of the Bombay Police Act because convictions for minor offences under the Delhi Public Gambling Act like those under sections 4, 7 and 12 too are made a ground of externment. Convictions for such offences, however, do nto constitute valid basis of externment under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act as in force in Bombay. The Central Government in extending the provisions of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act to Delhi has, in our opinion, departed from the essential features of that section in the matter of gambling offences, inasmuch as it has tried to include the conviction for minor gambling offences also as a ground for externment, whereas the scheme and policy of that section was to consider only convictions for gambling offences of a serious nature as justifying externment. This was an attempt at legislation and nto a mere modification of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. This cannto be countenanced in law because it is going beyond the "high water mark of legislative provisions", 'to use the words of Lord Hew art in King v. Minister of Health. (4) (12) There is nothing to show that there is something peculiar in the local conditions of Delhi that even though convictions for minor gambling offences did nto justify externment of the convict in Bombay, such a course, in view of special local conditions, was considered necessary in Delhi.

(14) The provisions about the externment of a person from a city of which he is the resident constitute a serious encroachment upon the liberty of an individual and have to be construed strictly. Any attempt at enlarging the grounds for externment must be subjected to close scrutiny and can be sustained only if it stands that test. It is, in our opinion, nto permissible to add to those grounds by means of an executive order; the only remedy for that is proper legislation for the purpose.

(15) We therefore, are of the view that the words "under the Delhi Gambling Act, 1955 (Delhi Act Ix of 1955)" in clause (c) of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act as extended to Delhi, are ultra vires.