Anil Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure-P/9) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the order regrading externment has been passed on the ground that subjective satisfaction regarding mandate of Section 5(a)(b) is not available and the petitioner has been externed and directed to remain out of the Revenue Districts i.e Damoh, Chhatarpur, Satna, Katni, Baanda and Chitrakut for a period of six months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has availed the alternative remedy as available under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam by filing an appeal before the Commissioner which is still pending. The appeal was filed along with the application for grant of stay but the same has been rejected without considering his objections filed along with application. He further submitted that on earlier two occasions i.e on 20.11.2018 and 25.02.2022, same action was taken for externment against the petitioner where the Collector Katni had given a categorical finding that ingredients of Section 5 (a) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam are not available, therefore, the petitioner cannot be externed. Again on the same ground, the externment order has been passed. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that this petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, only the interim order rejecting the prayer for grant of stay has been passed. Final order of the Appellate Authority is still awaited. Since the appeal is pending, in such circumstances, the petition may not be entertained.

Taking into consideration the fact that on earlier two occasions, the Collector has given a categorical finding that the petitioner cannot be externed and on the same ground again for the third time he has been externed.

In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the prima facie case for stay is made out in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure-P/9) is hereby set aside. The application for grant of stay stands allowed. However, looking to the nature of offence and the punishment imposed on the petitioner and the fact that the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Till then, the order of externment dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure-P/8) shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy today.