W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 $~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010428142026 + W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026, CRL.M.A. 28040/2026 & CRL.M.A. 28041/2026 MUKESH @ BAHADUR @ DHANDHU .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Gupta and Ms. Kirti Aggarwal, Advs. versus STATE(GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Sonia Malhotra and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘BNSS’) , seeking quashing of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in Case No. 35/2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the externment order was dismissed, as well as the externment order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Delhi in Case File No. 46/2025. 3. Brief facts are that the externment proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to a proposal under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 1978, stated to have been received from the SHO, P.S. Mayur Vihar, through the ACP, Mayur Vihar, on the ground that the petitioner was involved in 14 criminal cases. Vide order dated 24.03.2026, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Delhi directed the petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of the NCT of Delhi for a period of 24 months. The involvement mentioned in the order dated 24.03.2026 are as under: Date U/S Police Station Present Status 14.01.2 006 20/61/85 NDPS Act Mayur Vihar Acquitted on 22.12.2016 29.05.2 007 27/61/85 NDPS Act Kamla Market Convicted on 07.09.2007 03.01.2 014 379/411/34 IPC New Delhi Rly. St. Pending Trial 08.01.2 014 379 IPC New Delhi Rly. St. Untraced dt. 02.04.2014 26.01.2 014 379/411 IPC New Delhi Rly. St. Pending Trial 13.03.2 014 379 IPC New Delhi Rly. St. Pending Trial This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 13.10.2 017 420/34 IPC Kashmiri Gate Compounde d on 07.05.2019 13.02.2 018 420/34 IPC Kashmiri Gate Discharged on 23.06.2018 31.05.2 020 419/420 IPC Sarita Vihar Compounde d on 29.08.2023 22.06.2 020 420/34 IPC Amar Colony Case abated dt. 02.05.2023 30.06.2 020 392/365//506 /34 IPC Sunlight Colony Pending Trial 05.07.2 020 420/384/34 IPC Kotla Mubarakpur Disposed on 29.11.2023 15.12.2 022 12/9/55 Gambling Act Mayur Vihar Plead Guilty dt. 08.10.2023 20.12.2 024 33 Delhi Excise Act Mayur Vihar Pending Investigatio n 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which was registered as Case No. 35/2026. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2026 and the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 externment order dated 24.03.2026 was upheld. 5. The petitioner states that he is a driver by occupation and is residing with his wife and three minor daughters. He claims to be a permanent resident of Delhi and to have his own residence in Trilokpuri, Delhi. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the externment order, he shifted to Noida and has been taking shelter with friends and relatives, thereby losing his source of livelihood. 6. The petitioner accordingly contends that the impugned orders have adversely affected his livelihood and his ability to reside with and support his family, and seeks quashing of the orders dated 24.03.2026 and 15.07.2026 and permission to reside with his family in Delhi. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the externment order dated 24.03.2026, as upheld by the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the learned Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. It is submitted that, after the year 2022, only three cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which the latest cases pertain to gambling and offences under the Excise Act. 8. It is submitted that the externment order has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as he is a driver by profession and has lost his source of employment on account of being required to remain outside Delhi. The petitioner does not have any house or other accommodation outside Delhi and is presently dependent upon friends and relatives for shelter. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has his own house in Delhi, where his wife and three minor daughters reside, and that the externment of the petitioner has adversely affected the entire family. It is contended that the petitioner is the only male member of the family and is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 responsible for the care and financial support of his wife and minor daughters. 10. Learned ASC appearing for the State opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 11. It is submitted that the material and information forming the basis of the externment proceedings were duly considered by the competent authority while passing the externment order. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, while considering the appeal, also examined the material placed before him and, upon consideration thereof, upheld the order of externment. 12. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned ASC for the State and has perused the impugned orders and the material placed on record. 13. The Scope of Judicial review by the Writ Court of a Quasi Judicial order is explained by the Supreme Court of India in the Case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, (2005) 5 SCC 181, wherein while dealing the scope of interference in an Externment Order, Apex Court observed that though, such order is an administrative Order and the Courts must be slow to interfere in such Orders made by the Competent Authority, but it is trite law that the Order may in exercise of power whether legislative or administrative, would be set-aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. The principles can be grouped in two categories. i) failure to exercise a discretion and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power. These two Clauses were held to be not mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be improperly exercised because irrelevant considerations have been taken into account.The Courts must be therefore, slow to interfere in matters relating to administrative functions unless the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 decision is tainted by any vulnerability as stated above. 14. The record in the present case does not support the contention that the impugned externment order was passed mechanically or without consideration of the material available on record. The order dated 24.03.2026 records that the petitioner was served with notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act on 01.07.2025; he appeared before the competent authority, understood the notice in vernacular, denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. He thereafter submitted a written reply and furnished surety. The prosecution witness, namely the SHO, P.S. Mayur Vihar, was examined and cross-examined. The petitioner also examined two defence witnesses, both of whom deposed regarding his conduct in the neighbourhood. 15. The record further shows that during the pendency of the externment proceedings, the petitioner was found involved in FIR No. 361/2025 under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act. A supplementary notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner, but no reply thereto was submitted. The Externing Authority, while passing the final order, specifically recorded that it had considered the notice under Section 50, the petitioner's reply, the statement of the prosecution witness, the statements of the defence witnesses, the supplementary notice and the other material brought on record. 16. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that most of the cases relied upon against him are old and that, after the year 2022, only a limited number of cases were registered against him. The petitioner has also relied upon the fact that some of the earlier cases have been disposed of and has questioned the reliance placed upon the cases under the Gambling Act and the Delhi Excise Act. However, the material before the Externing Authority comprised not merely the earlier antecedents but also the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 subsequent involvement of the petitioner during the pendency of the externment proceedings. The Externing Authority has recorded a finding of continuing and persistent criminal activity on the basis of the entire material before it. 17. This Court cannot accept the submission that there was no material before the Externing Authority. The order dated 24.03.2026 demonstrates due application of mind to the material placed before the authority. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings, to file his reply, to furnish surety, to cross-examine the prosecution witness and to lead defence evidence. The subsequent involvement in FIR No. 361/2025 was also taken into consideration after issuance of a supplementary notice. There is thus no material before this Court to hold that the statutory procedure was not followed. 18. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, while deciding the appeal under Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, has also considered the petitioner's submissions regarding false implication, absence of public witnesses, alleged lack of legal assistance and the hardship caused to his family. The appellate order records that no material had been placed before the appellate authority to establish any illegality, perversity or violation of the principles of natural justice and further notes the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in offences under the Delhi Excise Act during the pendency of the externment proceedings. On consideration of the record, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor found the exercise of power by the Externing Authority to be relevant, reasoned and lawful and dismissed the appeal. 19. The hardship pleaded by the petitioner, namely loss of livelihood, absence of accommodation outside Delhi and the difficulties allegedly being This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26 W.P.(CRL) 2790/2026 faced by his wife and three minor daughters, has also been considered. These circumstances may constitute personal hardship; however, they cannot, by themselves, demonstrate any illegality in the exercise of statutory power when the competent authority has recorded its satisfaction on the basis of relevant material after following the prescribed procedure. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no perversity, procedural infirmity or absence of material in the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Delhi. The order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, affirming the said order, also does not disclose any ground warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 21. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any. 22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/JYH/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 13:06:26