Back
2007(1) JLJ 274
A.M. Naik, J.
Dharmendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.7790 of 2006 (Jabalpur); Decided on 15.1.2007.
The respondent No.3, vide his order dated 6.3.2006, passed an order of externment of the petitioner under sections 5(b) and 6(a) of the said Act from the district of Satna and surrounding districts for a period of one year. This order is contained in Annexure P-9 which was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition for quashment of the orders of externment (Annexure P-9) and confirmation by the appellate authority (Annexture P-10]. [Para 1
Held: No order was passed for more than 2 years and 10 months and again a report from SP, Satna dated 12.9.2005, was placed on record. Prior to it, the earlier report of the SP, Satna, dated 2.7.2002 was already on record. There is no material in the file as to how, when and why the second report was requisitioned. Similarly, it is not clear from the file as to who did requisition the second report. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is strengthened that on the basis of the earlier report dated 2.7.2002 there was no sufficient material to form an opinion against the petitioner that he was liable to be externed and the material available on record was insufficient for the subjective satisfaction. There is no explanation in the return as to why and in what circumstances the order was withheld for more than 2 years and 10 months and what caused the District Magistrate, Satna, to withheld the proceedings for more than 2 years and 10 months. Inaction for a period of 2 years and 10 months in a case of externment clearly suggests that the order of externment was not warranted during the said period. It being not the case of the respondents that subsequent events or the record of the petitioner (after exclusion of the cases of acquittal) has provided a basis to form an opinion about subjective satisfaction with regard to externment of the petitioner, this Court in view of the Supreme Court‘s decision (supra) holds that the authorities have failed to make application of mind to the attending facts and circumstances and the same coupled with the non-consideration of effect of acquittal in so many cases has vitiated the subjective satisfaction about externment of the petitioner rendering the externment order invalid. Consequently, the impugned orders contained in Annexure P-9 and P-10 are not liable to be sustained. 1989(2) Crimes 53 followed. [Para 7
jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 5¼[k½ rFkk 6¼d½& &ckgj fudkys tkus dk vkns‘k& &vusd nkafMd ekeyksa esa nks"keqfDr ij /;ku ugha fn;k x;k& &dkZokgh 2 o"kZ 10 ekl rd jksdh xbZ& &iqfyl v/kh{kd dh ijorh fjiksVZ ij fopkj fd;k x;k& &vkReijd lek/kku nwf"kr& &vkns‘k vfHk[kafMrA çR;FkhZ Ø-3 us vius vkns‘k fnukad 6-3-2006 }kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5¼[k½ vkSj 6¼d½ ds v/khu ;kph dks lruk ftys ls vkSj vklikl ds ftyksa ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ckgj fudkyus dk vkns‘k ikfjr fd;kA ;g vkns‘k mikaca/k ih&9 esa varfoZ"V gS ftl ij vihy esa vlQy vk{ksi fd;k x;kA vr% ckgj fudkys tkus ds vkns‘k ¼mikca/k ih&9½ vkSj vihy çkf/kdkjh }kjk iqf"V ds vkns‘k ¼mikca/k ih&10½ ds vfHk[kaMu ds fy, ;g ;kfpdk gSA ¼iSjk 1½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nks o"kZ nl ekl ls vf/kd dh vof/k rd dksbZ vkns‘k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk fQj iqfyl v/kh{kd] lruk dh fjiksVZ fnukad 12-9-2005 vfHkys[k ij çLrqr dh xbZA blds iwoZ iqfyl v/kh{kd] lruk dh iwoZrj fjiksVZ fnukad 2-7-2002 igys ls gh vfHkys[kxr FkhA Qkby ij bl ckjs esa dksbZ lkexzh ugha gS fd dSls] dc vkSj f}rh; fjiksVZ ek¡xh xbZA blh çdkj] Qkby ls Li"V ugha gS fd f}rh; fjiksVZ fdlus ek¡xhA vr% ;kph ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds ladFku dks cy çkIr gksrk gS fd iwoZrj fjiksVZ fnukad 2-7-2002 ds vk/kkj ij ;kph ds fo#) ;g jk; xfBr djus ds fy, i;kZIr lkexzh ugha Fkh fd og ckgj fudkys tkus ;ksX; gS] rFkk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh vkReijd lek/kku ds fy, vi;kZIr FkhA mÙkj esa dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha gS fd vkns‘k 2 o"kZ 10 ekl ls vf/kd D;ksa vkSj fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa jksdk x;k rFkk ftyk eftLVªsV] lruk us dk;Zokgh 2 o"kZ 10 ekl ls vf/kd D;ksa jksdhA ckgj fudkys tkus ds ekeyksa esa 2 o"kZ 10 ekl dh vof/k ds fy, fuf"Ø;rk ls Li"V bafxr gksrk gS fd ckgj fudkys tkus dk vkns‘k mDr vof/k ds nkSjku okaNuh; ugha FkkA D;ksafd çR;FkhZx.k dk ;g i{kdFku ugha gS ijorhZ ?kVukvksa ls ;k ;kph ds vfHkys[k ls ¼nks"keqfDr ds ekeys vioftZr djus ds i‘pkr ;kph dks ckgj fudkyus ds lac/k esa vkReijd lek/kku ds ckjs esa jk; xfBr djus ds fy, vk/kkj çkIr gqvk gS] ;g U;k;ky; mPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ¼iwoksZDr½ dh n`f"V ls vf/kfu/kkZfjr djrk gS fd çkf/kdkh vkuq"kafxd rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij euksfo;ksx djus esa foQy jgs gSa rFkk blds lkFk brus ekeyksa esa nks"keqfDr ds çHkko ij fopkj ugha fd, tkus ls ;kph dks ckgj fudkyus ds ckjs esa vkReijd lek/kku nwf"kr gks x;k gS ftlls ckgj fudkys tkus dk vkns‘k voS/k gks x;k gSA ifj.kkeLo:i mikca/k ih&9 vkSj ih-10 esa varfoZ"V vkf{kIr vkns‘k dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA 1989¼2½ ØkbEl 53 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7½
1. Petitioner is a sitting Corporator of Municipal Corporation, Satna for second consecutive term and is also leading a public life in different capacities. He is also entrusted with the work of disbursement of pension under the "Nirashrit Pension Scheme" in his constituency. A show cause notice under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh (Rajya) Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 was issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2005. He submitted a detailed reply vide Annexure P-4 and 16.1.2006. An application was also submitted seeking transfer of the case on the ground that the petitioner had submitted a memorandum for transfer of Shri Umakant Umrao (repondent No.3) to the then Chief Minister. The prayer was declined. It was stated in the reply that in 25 of the cases referred to in the' recommendation Annexure P-2, the petitioner was already acquitted. The proposed action of extemment was tainted with mala fides and political vengeance. The petitioner is a law abiding respected member of the society and is not involved in any unlawful activity. However the respondent No.3, vide his order dated 6.3.2006, passed an order of extemment of the petitioner under sections 5(b) and 6(a) of the said Act from the district of Satna and surrounding districts for a period of one year. This order is contained in Annexure P-9 which was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition for quashment of the orders of extemment (Annexure P-9) and confirmation by the appellate authority (Annexture P-10].
2. In the return, it has been stated that the City Superintendent of Police had submitted his report that 52 cases of mar-peer, extortion, theft, kidnapping and murder are pending against the petitioner who was " indulged in such offences. Witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner due to his terror. Thus, he is creating a continuing obstruction in the district administration and maintenance of law and order. It has been denied that the District Collector Shri Umakant Umrao has personal prejudice against the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the order of externment has been rightly passed purely in the interest of public and is not tainted with personal prejudice.
3. Shri A.K. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate made their respective submissions.
4. Shri Soni, learned counsel strongly contended that the petitioner was although already acquitted in number of cases, the effect of such acquittal was not taken into consideration while passing the order of externment. The petitioner has stated on oath and has also substantiated that the various cases described in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Satna dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure P-2) at serial Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7,8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 45 stood terminated in acquittal on various dates. The case at serial No.3 was decided in favour of the petitioner on 17.5.1990. Similarly, the crime case described at serial No.16 terminated in his favour in the year 1995. The cases described at serial Nos. 5, 8, 10, 31 and 33 terminated in favour of the petitioner in the year 1996. Similarly, certain other cases were also decided in favour of the petitioner much before the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 12.9.2005 contained in Annexure P-2. Shri Soni, learned counsel contended that the fact of acquittal in 25 cases was not taken into consideration by the learned District Magistrate while forming an opinion about subjective satisfaction in the matter of externment of the petitioner which amounted to non-application of mind and the order of externment is liable to be quashed.
5. In the return, the allegation pertaining to non-consideration of the effect of acquittal in the said cases has not been denied. On the contrary, it has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the return as under:
"The contention of the petitioner that some of the cases mentioned by him were converted i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
