Quashed by judge N Sathis kumar j for petner senior adv abudu kumar argued. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.P. (Crl) No. of 2025 Ajay Rohan (Male/ 36 years) S/o. Duraimanickam, No.6, NRI Layout, VGP South Main Road, Panayur, Chennai – 600 119. …Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner office Building, E.V.K. Sampath Road,

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

W.P. (Crl) No. of 2025

Ajay Rohan (Male/ 36 years) S/o. Duraimanickam,
No.6, NRI Layout,
VGP South Main Road, Panayur, Chennai – 600 119. …Petitioner
-Vs- 1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
No.132, Commissioner office Building, E.V.K. Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai ‒ 600 007. …1st Respondent
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
O/o the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Triplicane District, Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002. …2nd Respondent
3. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order)
F 3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Valluvar Kottam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 ..3rd Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI. AJAY ROHAN
I, Ajay Rohan S/o. Duraimanickam, Male, aged about 36 years, having Permanent Residence at No.6, NRI Layout, VGP South Main Road, Panayur, Chennai – 600 119, solemnly affirms and sincerely states
as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Petitioner herein and I am well conversant with
the facts of the case, and I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. I submit that I am a Businessman carrying business in the name and style of AJ Associates, having office at No. 459, Anna Salai, Rathna Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018. I am also a Politician currently holding the post of State-level Secretary for the Sports wing of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), political Party, the current Principal opposition party in
the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. I submit that I am being targeted systematically by the ruling party in the State of Tamil Nadu i.e., Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). I submit that due to political motives I was wrongly implicated in Crime No. 335 of 2025 and Crime No. 346 of 2025, both on the file of 3rd Respondent and subsequent to my arrest, the 3rd Respondent
sponsored proposal for detention order against me, pursuant to which I was detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, etc., Act) vide G.O. Rt. No. 4523 dated 07.06.2025 for the very same alleged offences. The said detention order was subsequently revoked by the Advisory Board on 25.07.2025 observing that there is no sufficient cause for the detention. Further, I was released on bail vide Crl.M.P. No. 6404 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 by the Honʼble Principal sessions Judge, Chennai in Crime No. 346 of 2025 and vide Crl. O.P. No. 20683 of 2025 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025 by the Honʼble Madras High Court in Crime No. 335 of 2025.
4. I submit that in the above said circumstances, a Show Cause Notice with Reference No. 1131/DCT/Camp/2025 dated 16.08.2025 was
sent to me by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane District, Chintadripet, Chennai, the 2nd Respondent herein, calling me to show cause as to why an order of Externment U/s. 51A of Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Hereinafter referred to as ʻthe Actʼ) against me,
citing a Complaint received from the Inspector of Police, F3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Nungambakkam, Chennai, the 3rd Respondent herein citing 3 previous cases in which I am arrayed as an Accused.
5. I submit that on receipt of the said notice I promptly got in touch with my advocate and a reply to the said Show Cause Notice was sent to the 2nd Respondent herein through RPAD which was received by the office of the Respondent on 23.08.2025. Further, a copy of the said
reply was furnished in person to the 2nd Respondent by my Advocate.
6. I further submit that without considering the Reply dated 22.08.2025, the 2nd Respondent issued another Show Cause Notice with Reference No. 1131-1/DCT/Camp/2025 dated 26.08.2025 and thereby
compelling me to appear in person. Immediately, another Reply dated 27.08.2025 was sent by my advocate to the 2nd Respondent requesting him to consider the Reply dated 22.08.2025 along with enclosures. It was also requested to furnish certain documents and an opportunity to examine a list of persons as witnesses as provided under section 51A of the Act in order to defend myself.
7. While So, without considering the above said reply, the 1st Respondent herein had passed an Externment Order vide நா.கா. No.
04/ ெவ. ஆ./2025 U/s. 51A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888
(hereinafter referred to as ʻthe impugned orderʼ) dated 13.09.2025 directing me not to enter the territory which falls within the control of Greater Chennai Police for a period of one year from 13.09.2025.
8. The impugned order was passed under section 51 A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. The said provision is extracted herein under for easy reference:
“Section 51A – Power to direct removal of persons from City in
Special cases
(1) Whenever the Commissioner is satisfied from
information received or otherwise —
(a) Central Act XLV of 1860– that the movements or acts of any person in the City of Madras who has not been born in the said City or in the district of Chingleput or North Arcot as it existed immediately before the 1st April 1960 are causing or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of any offence involving force of violence or punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence ; and
(b) that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part regarding the safety of their person or property, the Commissioner may, by an order in writing signed by him, direct such person so to conduct himself as small seem necessary to the Commissioner to prevent such alarm, danger or harm or the commission of such offence, or require such person to move himself outside the said City within, such time as may be specified in the order.

(2) Before an order is passed against any person under subsection (1) the Commissioner or any Joint Commissioner or any Deputy Commissioner authorized by him shall inform such person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining those allegations. The Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may also examine any witnesses produced by such person. Any written statement made by such person shall be filed with the record. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner by an advocate or attorney for the purpose of explaining the allegations against him and examining the witnesses produced by him.”
9. I submit that the reasons stated in the impugned order for passing the same are as follows:
i. That my Reply to the Show Cause Notice is not qualified to be
acceptable.
ii. And that out of fear nobody is ready to be a witness in the cases that are pending against me as I have been threatening to deprive
them of their life and property.
10. I submit that the above said reasons are mere allegations and the 1st Respondent has not substantiated the same. It is pertinent to note that in my reply dated 22.08.2025, I have given a detailed explanation pointing out the deliberate misrepresentations contained in the Show Caused Notice. There were a total of 3 cases mentioned in the Show
cause Notice. The details of the cases are as follows:
i. The first one was registered by E5, Patinapakkam Police Station on 11.11.2017 vide Crime No. 657 of 2017 which could not have any bearing or live link or reasonable proximity to the present proceedings. It is also stated the said case is a false
case foisted against me.
ii. The Second case was registered by the 3rd Respondent vide Crime No. 335 of 2025 dated 25.05.2025, It is pertinent to note that I was not even present in the premises at the time of alleged occurrence, was not named as an accused in the FIR initially and has been implicated at a later stage based on alleged confession/statement of another Accused. Further, It is pertinent to note that the Crime No.335 of 2025 is a counter case which was registered by one Mr. Selvabarathy against whom an FIR has been registered in Crime No. 327 of 2025
dated 23.05.2025 before the 3rd Respondent.
iii. The Third case vide Crime No. 346 of 2025 on the file of the 3rd Respondent is purely a civil transaction which has been malfidely converted into a criminal case and the same would
not warrant any externment order.
11. I submit that in all the above-mentioned cases, Statements of Witnesses, Confession Statements, copies of the video footage referred in the FIR, respective Mahazars and other relevant records pertaining to the same were neither enclosed with the Show Cause notice nor furnished even after the same was requested in my reply. Also, the Respondent has willfully restrained from giving an opportunity to examine the witnesses even after the same was
requested twice through my reply.
12. I submit that at this juncture it is pertinent to take note of the judgment of this Honʼble Court passed in Surya@ Nedungundram Surya vs The Commissioner of Police and 2 others, W.P. No. 16454 of 2025. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder for immediate
reference:
“8. The impugned order has not been passed by considering the entire materials. Further, it is a specific contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice has been replied. However, in the counter, it is the stand of the respondents that a reply has been sent by the advocate to the Deputy Commissioner, Puzhal which has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police. Even assuming that show cause notice has been sent to the different Officer, it is admitted by the respondents that the explanation is also sent to the concerned Inspector and that ought to have been considered and forwarded immediately which has not been done so. It is further contended that the advocate alone sent a reply and therefore, it has not been considered.
9. In fact, the very provision gives opportunity to the person against whom action is sought to be taken, to engage a lawyer of his choice even to explain the allegation under Subsection 2 of 51A. And therefore, this court is of the view that the very order passed by the respondents cannot sustain in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.”

13. I submit that this conduct of the Respondents is an illustration of how the Respondents are hellbent in getting rid of me on account of political rivalries. However, the 1st Respondent even after receiving my replies to the Show Cause Notice sent to the 2nd Respondent, has passed the impugned order without considering my explanations contained therein. In the said circumstances, as the impugned order curtails my Right of movement, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, 1950 without satisfying the test of reasonable restriction as mandated under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950, I am constrained to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Honʼble Court by way of the instant
writ petition on the following among other

GROUNDS
A. That the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal as the same has been passed under gross misrepresentation, with ulterior motive, without following due process and is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 15 & 19 of the
Constitution of India.
B. That the 1st Respondent has not considered the explanations contained in my reply dated 22.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 and has passed the impugned order solely based on the misleading Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2025.
C. That the impugned order i.e., the Order of Externment is not substantiative but is vague, non-speaking and has been passed based
on mere presumptions and assumptions without any application of
mind.
D. That the Show Cause Notice also states that a total of 3 cases are pending against the Petitioner. It is imperative to not that an order of Externment cannot be passed considering the cases which are under investigation. Such an order of Externment would be arbitrary for the simple reason that the involvement of the Petitioner in the cases under investigation would be substantiated only upon completion of the investigation. It is imperative to take note of Judgment of the Honʼ ble Bombay High Court in the case of Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad vs The
State of Maharashtra and others (WP No. 2805 of 2023). The Relevant portion is extracted herein under for reference:
“19. The situation which thus obtains is that the externing authority had noted pendency of two cases which did not satisfy the requirement of class of cases stipulated by clause (b) and also considered the crimes which were under investigation and
chargesheet had not been filed. It is trite, the crimes which are still under investigation cannot be taken into consideration as depending upon the outcome of the investigation, the investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial. It is true, in one of the crimes, subsequently chargesheet came to be filed. However, a submission could be advanced that the chargesheet was filed with a view to justify and support the order of externment. Reliance placed by Mr. Gupta on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganesh Laxman Dhabale V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. appears to be well founded.
20. Secondly, the objection based on the absence of live link between the cases filed against the Petitioner and the externment order also carries some substance. The cases at Sr. Nos.2 i.e.
C.R.No.568 of 2019, at Sr. No.4 i.e. C.R.No.2 of 2020, at Sr. No.5 i.e. C.R.No.187 of 2020 were registered in the years 2019 and 2020. Action for externment was initiated in the month of July 2022 and the order of externment came to be passed on 24 January 2023. Considerable period elapsed from the registration of the aforesaid crimes till the initiation of the action for externment. The purpose of externment is not punitive. Externment is with a view to disable a person by moving him away from surroundings which prove favourable for the commission of the offences and thereby disarm his influence in the said area. Thus, there ought to be a live link between the acts of the externee and the action of externment. Stale cases cannot be used to support the externment order. This also bears upon the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the externing authority.”
E. It is trite law that an Order of Externment which curtails the Fundamental Rights of a Citizen, should be used sparingly under extraordinary circumstances. However, the impugned order has been arbitrarily passed citing pending cases cases against the Petitioner, without citing proper reasons. Therefore, the impugned order is
devoid of any proximate incident.
F. That the Order of Externment does not mention any proximate incident i.e., an offence committed in the recent past which has
necessitated the passing of the said order. It is imperative to take note of the judgment of the Honʼble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahantayya vs State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 104804 of 2023). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“10. The crux of the afore-quoted provisions of law which empower externment of a person would undoubtedly mean that there should be minimum proximity or necessity for passing an order of externment. There is no proximate incident that is narrated in the impugned order. Without any foundation the order projects the petitioner as a bane to the society or the surrounding area. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the order impugned would not stand the test of reasonableness as obtaining under Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India. If the facts of the case are considered on the bedrock of the statute and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak (supra) the order impugned would lose its legal legs to stand and would be rendered unsustainable. Unsustainability of the order would lead to its obliteration.”
G. That the Respondent/ the externing authority has not given any substantive reasons for passing the impugned order and as to why the Petitioner has to be externed for a period of one year. The impugned order alleged threatening of witnesses but fails to justify the same as neither any incidents not the details of such witnesses nor details of the respective cases have been mentioned. It is therefore coherent that the Respondent has passed the cryptic order arbitrarily without due consideration and application of mind which makes the impugned
order illegal and perverse.
H. That the while passing an order of externment there must be objective materials on the basis of which the externing authority is required to record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is engaged or is about to engage in the
commission of an offence which necessitates an order of externment.
I. It is also imperative that the 1st Respondent ought to have been satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or that of their property. However, it is seen that without placing reliance on any material evidence and merely based on misleading presumptions and assumptions, the 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order which makes it per se
illegal. In this regard it is pertinent to take note of Judgment of the Hon ʼ ble Supreme Court passed in Deepak vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022; dated 28.01.2022).
J. That the 1st Respondent failed to acknowledge the fact that even though 3 cases have been registered against the Petitioner, the Petitioner has not been convicted by any Court in any of the cases. This goes to say that almost all the cases that have been filed against the Petitioner are nothing but fake cases registered on account of political pressure. The 1st Respondent ought not have overseen the said fact and ought not have passed the impugned order without any
substantial proof.
K. The Petitioner craves the leave of this Honʼble Court to raise
additional grounds in the course of his oral/ written submissions.

14. The Petitioner was served with a Photocopy of the order and so the Petitioner is not in possession of the certified Impugned order. In the
said circumstances the Petitioner is unable to produce the
original/certified Copy of the impugned order. It is therefore just and necessary to dispense with the Petitioner from filing the original impugned order.
15. The Petitioner further submits that he is a socially active person and a businessman who is striving for the welfare of the downtrodden and has been unnecessarily targeted by various persons including political personalities due to previous enmity. In the said circumstances, the 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order without any application of mind and without following due process and in turn has deprived the Petitioner of his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and is therefore liable to be
quashed.

In the said circumstances it is prayed that this Honʼble Court maybe pleased to DISPENSE WITH the Petitioner from filing the original impugned order vide நா.கா. No. 04/ ெவ. ஆ./2025 U/s. 51A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 dated 13.09.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honʼble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

In the said circumstances it is prayed that this Honʼble Court maybe pleased to STAY the impugned order vide நா.கா. No. 04/ ெவ.ஆ./2025 U/s. 51A of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 dated
13.09.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honʼble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.

It is therefore prayed that this Honʼble Court maybe pleased to issue an order or direction more fully in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order vide நா.கா. No. 04/ ெவ. ஆ./2025 U/s. 51A of the Chennai City Police
Act, 1888 dated 13.09.2025 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Honʼble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at ___________ )( Before Me,
on this the day of September, )( 2025 and affixed his signature in my )(
presence Advocate