The court emphasized the need for proper application of mind, consideration of current activities, and granting of fair opportunity in externment orders under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order of externment dated 1-5-2004 and affirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority on 12-10-2004 and to pass such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 31-3-2004 by the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vide Annexure P-l indicating certain aspects which related to involvement of the petitioner in respect of certain crime with a further stipulation that an order of externment be passed against him as contemplated in M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 from the district Jabalpur and nearby districts, namely, Mandla, Dindori, Balaghat, Seoni, Narsinghpur, Chhindwara and Katni.

3. The petitioner filed his show cause as per Annexure P- 2 controverting the allegations and also putting forth a stance that he has been acquitted in number of cases that have been referred to in the notice to show cause.

4. The Additional District Magistrate vide order contained in Annexure P-3 dated 1-5-2004 passed the order of externment from the districts which found mention in the show cause. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal as per Annexure P-4. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order, Annexure P-5 dismissed the appeal.

5. It is contended in the petition that the order of externment and affirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority are illegal and founded on astonished facts which are not germane to the issue inasmuch as the provisions of the Act having not been considered in proper perspective. It is putforth that the authorities had not considered the gravity of the situation and passed an order in a routine manner. It is also putforth that the authorities have not taken into consideration the cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted and passed the order.

6. I have heard Mr. Narayan Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Government Advocate for the State.

7. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power of externment under the Act has to be exercised with care and caution and the order passed in the instant case shows that there has been no application of mind. It can not he allowed to stand.

8. It is also contended by him that old and stale activities can not be grounds of externment, but in the case at hand, such cases have formed the base. Learned Counsel has commended me to the decisions rendered in the cases of Premchand v. Union of India and Ors., 1981CriLJ5 , Ayubkhan v. State of M.P. and Anr. 1994 (1) Vibh 168, Bala @ Iqbal v. Additional. Collector, Indore and Anr. 1995 Cr.LJ (MP) 72, Nyaju alias Niyas Mohd. v. State of M.P. 2000(1) JLJ 321, Jokhu v. District Magistrate, Ujjain

9. In the case of Bala (supra) this Court has laid down as under :-

"12. Perusal of the said provision establishes that activities on the basis of which an order of externment can be made against any person must be those as existing at the time when the order is proposed to be made. All expressions in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 5 of the Adhiniyam can not present time. The provision is not punitive in its nature and a person can not be externed for his past acts. Although past activities of a person may afford a guide as to his behaviour in future, they must be reviewed in the context of the time when the order is proposed to be made. The past activities must be related to the situation existing at the moment when the order is to be passed.

13. Though as many as 8 offences are alleged to have been committed by him starting from the period 23-6-1989 to 29-7-1993. The offences alleged to have been committed by him are under Sections 151, 107, 116(3), 110, 379 and 324, IPC and