Rajesh Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3- Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) affirming the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 -District Magistrate, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) whereby the District Magistrate has passed an order of externment under the provisions of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1990') and thereby prohibiting the entry of the petitioner for a period of one year to the local limits of District Satna and its adjoining districts.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Satna and against him as many as 31 cases have been registered under IPC, Arms Act, 1959, M.P. Excise Act, 1915, the Public Gambling Act, 1867 etc. and the last offence registered against him was a proceeding under Section 110(6) of Cr.P.C. registered at complaint/Ishtagasa No.62/2016. A show cause notice to this effect was issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2018 on a recommendation dated 25.11.2016 made by the Superintendent of Police, Satna.

A reply to the aforesaid show cause notice has also been filed by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled therein, also contending that in 30 cases he has already been acquitted/discharged by the Court below and as such there was no occasion to apprehend that the public peace would be in any way jeopardized on account of his activities. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the case of the petitioner is covered by an order dated 02.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12446/2019 in the case of Manish Pratap Singh vs. The State of M.P. and others wherein this Court has held that the externment proceedings have to be initiated in accordance with the object of the Adhiniyam of 1990 as it should be timely and effective to prevent the persons from indulging in any other criminal activity. It is further submitted that in the said case the recommendation was made on 22.04.2016, however the impugned order was passed on 26.11.2018 i.e. after more than 2½ years of the recommendation of the S.P. whereas, in the case on hand, admittedly the recommendation by the S.P. was made on 25.11.2016 and the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner only on 24.09.2018 and thereafter the final order was passed on 05.11.2018 i.e. after more than two years from the date of recommendation. Thus it is submitted that on this ground only the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner is a habitual offender and as many as 31 cases have been registered against him till date and as such no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by both the authorities below in passing the order of externment against the petitioner.

Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Although 31 cases were registered against the petitioner, in which he has already been acquitted/discharged in 30 cases.

On the other hand, the contention that the externment proceeding was initiated after an inordinate delay of one year and 10 months has rendered the very purpose of the same vitiated appears well-founded. This Court in the case of Manish Pratap Singh (supra) while dealing with the same issue of delay in proceeding under the Adhiniyam of 1990 has held as under :

"9. Above all, this Court also finds that the Superintendent of Police has recommended the proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner on 22.04.2016, the evidence of only one police witness has been recorded that too on 23.01.2017 i.e. after around 8 months whereas the order was passed by the District Magistrate on 26.11.2018 i.e. after one whole year after the witness was examined. Thus, a substantial period of more than 2 ½ years had already been elapsed when the order of externment was passed.

This Court, time and again has emphasized that an order of externment has to be passed soon after the notice to show cause is served on the petitioner. Of course, the principles of natural justice cannot be bygone while proceeding further but inordinate delay in disposing of such applications clearly defeat the very purpose for which the Adhiniyam of 1990 has been enacted. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the statement of object and reasons of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 which reads as under :

"STATEMENT OF OBJECT AND REASONS

For want of adequate enabling provisions in existing laws for taking effective preventive action to counteract activities of anti-social elements Government have been handicapped to maintain law and order. In order to take timely and effective preventive action it is felt that the Government should be armed with adequate power to nip the trouble in the bud so that peace, tranquility and orderly Government may not be endangered.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx"

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, a bare perusal of the same reveals that very purpose of the Adhiniyam of 1990 is to take timely and effective action which is preventive in nature. As has been discussed above, more than 2 ½ years have already been trifled away for no apparent reasons and during this entire period, no offense was registered against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the order passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the order itself has been passed by the D.M. after undue delay and thus, is a stale order passed against the petitioner for offences committed by him at an earlier period of time having no proximity with the order of externment."

In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the present case also the recommendation by the S.P. was made on 25.11.2016 and the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner only on 24.09.2018 i.e. almost after a period of one year and 10 months and thereafter the final order was passed on 05/11/2018 i.e. after more than two years from the date of recommendation, thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the initiation of the externment proceeding was merely a ritual which has been performed by the District Magistrate without application of mind after the recommendation was made by the Superintendent of Police on 25.11.2016.

As a result, the impugned order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.4/District Magistrate, Satna (M.P.) as well as the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed.

The petition stands allowed.

No costs.