IMPORTANT POINT
An externment order under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, requires a person to be classified as an anti-social element based on habitual offenses, and any order made without satisfying this condition or adhering to natural justice principles is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.

This criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of externment dated 22.10.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, namely, the District Magistrate, Khagaria in B.C.C.A. Case No. 33 of 2023.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief(s):-

(i) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.10.2023 passed in B.C.C.A. Case Number 33 of 2023 whereby the petitioner has been declared to be an anti-social element and an order of externment has been passed against him under Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to show cause as to under what circumstances vide order dated 21.10.2023 the proceedings were carried out in such a haste that less than one day was provided to the petitioner to furnish a reply to the show cause issued against him.

(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent number 4 to show cause as to under what circumstances and on what grounds the proceedings against the petitioner was initiated under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Authorities to compensate the petitioner for the harassment and humiliation caused to the petitioner and his family members due to the unjust, arbitrary and manifestly illegal order passed by the Respondent Authority.

(v) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that by notice dated 21.10.2023, issued, in the exercise of power under Section 3(3) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, by respondent No. 2. namely, the District Magistrate, Khagaria, the present petitioner was directed to show cause, if any, as to why an order of externment be not passed against him.

4. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted show cause. The District Magistrate, Khagaria expressed his satisfaction that externment order was necessary and directed that petitioner shall not enter into district of Khagaria for one month since the date of order of externment dated 22.10.2023. Further petitioner was directed to appear in person in Sadar Thana, Siwan in District Siwan on every day from 9 AM to 11 AM and 5 PM to 8 PM.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order of externment raised the question of principle of natural justice as notice was issued by respondent authority on 21.10.2023 and petitioner was directed to file show cause on 22.10.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that time gap between issuance of notice to the reply to said notice was less then 24 hours which clearly denotes that principle of natural justice has been made mere formalities just to overcome the impact of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that there must be a nexus between the date of offences which the petitioner is stated to have committed and the date of impugned order of externment but in the instant case, the FIR is said to be registered in the year 2021 and 2022 whereas order of externment has been passed on 22.10.2023 which has no nexus and any basis. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has filed detailed reply to the show cause issued by the respondent authority but his reply was not at all considered and order of externment was passed mechanically by the respondent authority on 22.10.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that from perusal of the FIR registered against the petitioner, it is crystal clear that only an offence under Section 353 which is covered under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be made out. In such a scenario, petitioner cannot be said to be h