1. This petition is hereby decided finally at this stage because the petition is connected with the proceeding which is initiated against the petitioner in view of provisions of Sections 5 & 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, (Hereinafer referred to as 'the Adhiniyam' for convenience ).

2. The proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in view of the above mentioned provision of the Adhiniyam as the District Magistrate, Dhar has been informed that the petitioner has criminal history and therefore his being at large in the society, is dangerous to the safety and property of the citizens residing in this particular area. While showing the cause in response to the notice issued to him in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, the petitioner expressed his desire to examine certain witnesses. He also made a prayer that these witnesses be summoned by District Magistrate who was conducting the said proceeding. The District Magistrate rejected his prayer and passed an order externing him from district of Dhar and its adjacent districts, for a period of 1 year. Shri Sunil Jain submitted that the procedure adopted by District Magistrate, Dhar is not consistent with the procedure established by law and it is inconsistent with guarantee provided by relevant Article of the Indian Constitution. Shri Amit Agrawal appearing for the respondent, by making reference to Section 8 of the Adhiniyam pointed out that the District Magistrate, Dhar is not obliged. or duty-bound for summoning the witnesses who have been indicated in the list with reply to show cause notice. He pointed out that the words "Witnesses produced" have to be interpreted properly According to the submission of Shri Agrawal, such witness is to be produced by proposed externee whom he wants to examine in the same proceeding. He submitted that the crimes has been committed in by petitioner and, therefore, there is no failure of justice.

3. Article 21 of Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

4. Article 19 guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens and clause (1) of Sub-clause (d) provides a right to all citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India. Sub-clause (e) provides guarantee to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. The fundamental right of freedom of movement and freedom of residence is likely to be infringed if the action proposed to be taken or taken is not consistent with provisions of Article 21. The liberty is a valuable right of a citizen. A living being cannot be even breath freely and happily if he has been put to incarceration. The Constitution is very much vigilent in protecting the fundamental right of liberty of a citizen. All opportunities should be given to a person whose liberty is likely to be eclipsed by an administrative action of the State.

5. Section g of the Adhiniyam indicates that if a person against whom such proceeding is initiated, if makes an application for examination of any witness produced by him, the D.M. Shall grant such application and examine such witnesses unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the D.M. is of the opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay, or for deteating the ends of justice. The said proceedings are to be conducted so far as possible in accordance with the procedure laid down .by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') The same words have been used in sub-section (3) of Sec. 233 of the Code. It deals with the right of the accused who has been called upon to enter on his defrence sub-section (3) provides that if the accused applies for the issue of the process for compelling the attendance of any witness, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that he has made