AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
During the course of arguments, this Court asked the learned Government Advocate to produce the record of the case, but learned counsel for the petitioner insisted this Court to hear the matter finally on the basis of the grounds raised in the petition, therefore, this matter is heard finally at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner even without calling the record of the case from the District Magistrate, Satna.
By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.06.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Divisiona, Rewa, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of externment has been passed by the District Magistrate, Satna, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided under Section 8(1) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter 'the Adhiniyam, 1990'). He further submits that the documents which were required to be supplied to the petitioner, were not supplied to him, accordingly, the order impugned suffers from violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that the Commissioner, in an appeal preferred, has also not taken note of this aspect and reiterated the order passed by the District Magistrate.
As per the grounds raised in the petition, the petitioner has claimed that there was no proper compliance of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. It is also contended that the District Magistrate has passed the order of externment on 04.02.2019 externing the petitioner for a period of one year and five months have already expired and life of the petitioner is in danger, therefore, the order impugned be quashed. It is contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses and as such, doctrine of natural justice has been violated. It is submitted that the District Magistrate has not applied its judicial mind before passing the impugned order because the scheduled criminal cases of the petitioner are not of Zila Badar/externment. Confining these grounds of challenge, the order impugned is sought to be quashed.
Per contra , learned Government Advocate submits that from the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, it is clear that the petitioner was given a copy of show-cause notice along with the documents and the same is apparent from Annexure-P/3, which is a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1990. He further submits that the authority has followed the procedure prescribed and granted full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that since year 2016 till 2018, as many as seven criminal cases under different offences of the Indian Penal Code, have been registered against the petitioner. He submits that on the basis of the memo/report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Satna, the District Magistrate has exercised the power provided under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, and after getting himself satisfied that if the said power is not exercised, that would create unrest in public and the society would suffer because of the conduct of the petitioner, therefore, there is nothing illegal on the part of the authority passing the order of externment directing the petitioner to be externed for a period of one year from the revenue boundaries of District-Satna and its adjoining districts.
I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
As per the contentions and the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition, it is clear that the order passed by the District Magistrate has been assailed by him mainly on the ground that there is violation of mandatory requirement of Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. However, this ground has no substance and is factually incorrect because from the record available, it is clear that the petitioner by his own filed Annexure-P/3 showing that the same is a notice issued to him under Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990, assigning the reason as to why the power under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990, should not be exercised against him as he has been involved in criminal activities since year 2016 and various offences have been registered against him.
From a perusal of the notice, it is clear that the petitioner has been provided all respective information and documents which were made basis by the District Magistrate while exercising the power of externment.
Not only this, from the order of the District Magistrate, it is clear as mentioned in paragraph-4 of the order that in pursuance to the notice issued to the petitioner, he appeared before the authority, but did not file any document in support of his submission. Since there was no rebuttal on the part of the petitioner, the District Magistrate examined the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Satna and got himself satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violation or offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is also observed by the District Magistrate that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner and it is every apprehension that if such power is not exercised, that would affect the safety of the public or their property, therefore, to maintain law and order and in the interest of society, the District Magistrate has passed the order of externment.
In absence of any specific ground of challenge on which the order impugned can be set-aside, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the authority and the finding given by both the authorities are finding of fact. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate any perversity in the order impugned so also to demonstrate as to how the order impugned is in violation of principle of natural justice.
In absence of any specific ground on which the order impugned can be considered to be illegal, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.