Vickey Alias Anand Chari vs State Of M.P And Others

Vishal Mishra , J

The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2020 passed in Case No.18 Zila Badar/2019/Reader by the respondent no.2-

Collector, District Guna, whereby the petitioner is directed to remain out of the vicinity of Guna, Bhopal, Rajgarh, Shivpuri, Vidisha and Ashoknagar

for a period of one year.

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is highly illegal and arbitrary and is against the settled principle of law. It is

submitted that various provisions as contemplated under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for brevity “Adhiniyam, 1990â€)

has not been followed by the respondents authorities prior to passing of the impugned order.

An objection is being taken by the counsel for the State regarding the maintainability of the writ petition for want of alternative remedy. It is argued

that all the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition can very well be argued before the Appellate Authority as there is

a statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Adhiniyam itself. The petitioner has not availed the alternative and efficacious remedy available to

him and has directly approached this Court by filing the writ petition and he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as there is violation of statutory provisions of Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam which has already been settled

by large number of orders passed by this Court as well as Division Bench, therefore, availing the alternative and efficacious remedy is not a bar. He

has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and

Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1 as well as in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited (2011) 5 SCC 697 and has argued

that present petition can very well be entertained by this Court as there is a statutory violation of the several provisions of Adhiniyam, 1990. He has

also drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 13th March, 2020 and has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of alternative remedy was

considered by this Court and being satisfied with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner has directed for filing of reply and

production of record to the State Authorities. It is submitted that as there is no statutory bar the petition may be heard on merits. It is further argued

that earlier also the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner being W.P.No.8467/2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated

20.9.2019 with a direction to the respondents authorities to enter the details of all the criminal cases wherein the petitioner has already been acquitted

in the police records, but the aforesaid order has not been followed by the authorities. It is further argued that there is gross violation of section 6 and 8

of the Adhiniyam, 1990 because till today the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the case as shown by the respondents authorities in the

impugned order. It is argued that there is gross violation of provisions as contained in the Adhiniyam, 1990 as despite filing reply to the show cause

notice issued to the petitioner the same was not taken into consideration by the respondents authorities. He has further filed an application under

section 8 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 making a prayer for cross-examination of the witnesses, but the same has also not taken into consideration by the

authorities and merely on the basis of the statement of the respondent no.4, the impugned order has been passed. He has relied upon the judgments

passed by this Court in the case of Ramgopal Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2014 (4) M.P.L.J. 654 ,Meena Sonkar Vs. State of M.P.

and others, 2017 (2) M.P.L.J. 565, Anil @ Bade Guddu Vs. State of M.P., 2014 (III) MPWN 124 anAd shok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and

others, 2009 (4) M.P.L.J. 434 and has argued that it is mandatory for the authority to record their satisfaction in terms of section 5 (b) of Adhiniyam,

1990. The impugned order does not reflect the satisfaction of the Authorities. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set

aside.

Counsel for the respondent has argued that all the case-laws on which the petitioner has placed his reliance are being passed after the petitioner has

already availed the remedy of appeal available to him. Petitioner's counsel could not show any order, wherein without availing the remedy, the petition

was directly entertained by this Court. He has also relied upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.No.6762/2014

(order dated 25.9.2014) as well as order dated 1.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.24415/2018 (Rajpal Singh @ Darbariya vs State of M.P. and others),

wherein the writ petition was disposed of for want of alternative remedy.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is clearly seen that the impugned order is passed by the Collector- respondent no.2 in terms of section 9 of Adhiniyam the statutory, efficacious

and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Section 9 (1) of the Act reads as under:

“9. Appeal- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order under section 3, 4, 5 or 6 made by the District Magistrate or any other officer specially

empowered under Section 13 may appeal to the State Government with thirty days from the date of such order. Such appeal shall be decided as far as

possible within a period of four months of the date of filing of the appeal.â€​

Although this Court has directed for calling of the record vide order dated 13.3.2020 and in pursuance to the same the record is produced by the

respondent/State, but after seeing the report submitted to the Superintendent of Police and the subsequent report submitted by the Superintendent of

Police, it is seen that the Superintendent of Police has categorically noted his satisfaction. The grounds which have been raised by the petitioner can

very well be raised before the Appellate Authority and the entire record can be looked into by the Appellate Authority. All the grounds which have

been raised by the petitioner can very well be argued before the Appellate Authority. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any case-law,

wherein without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy as provided under the Act, the writ petition was directly entertained before this Court.

Considering the aforesaid and for want of alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed. However, a liberty is being extended to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within a period of 30 days from today

along with an application for interim relief and in case such an appeal is being filed, the Appellate Authority is required to consider the application for

grant of interim relief expeditiously.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

The record of the case be also handed over to the counsel for the State to enable him to send it back to the authorities immediately.