Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.

1. The petitioner, Mahabir Prasad Gupta, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing the orders dated 29-3-1988 (externment orders Annexure-J) passed by the Distt. Magistrate, Surjuga under the M. P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter, called, the Adhiniyam), directing that the petitioner shall not enter the districts of Surguja and its contiguous districts, namely, Raigarh, Bilaspur, Shahdol, Sidhi and Rewa, for a period of one year from the date of service of the order against which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been confirmed vide orders dated 28-6-1988 (Annexure-K).

2. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of Baikunthpur town of Surguja district and owns 2.671 hectares of agricultural land in village Janakpur of Tahsil Baikunthpur and cultivates the same (Rinipustika Annexure-A); that he was also a contractor of two quarry leases for sand, between 1977 and 1980, which he worked up under the agreements of quarry leases and was again granted quarry leases from 1-4-1983 to 31-5-1983 in village Saroli; that, he took seven contracts from the P.W.D. between 12-8-1983 and 2-10-1985 to earn his bread (copies of agreements Annexures-B to H); that, he has also taken construction contracts from the Municipal Council, Baikunthpur; that accordingly, he is a peace-loving citizen, but as he is an active worker of a rival political party all the proceedings against him are politically motivated; that, a case under section 12 of the Adhiniyam was registered as case No. 1/85 and a show cause notice dated 13-7-1987 (Annexure-I) was issued; that, to prejudice, the respondent No. 2/Collector, the police department mentioned as many as 33 incidents, out of which 25 incidents relate to the years 1954 to 1981; that, out of which only eight incidents relate to the period 1982 to 1986 and six incidents relate to section 294/506, Indian Penal Code, one under section 110, Criminal Procedure Code and one is the Sanha report by Station Officer, Baikunthpur; that, the petitioner denied the allegations, and submitted, that only four cases were pending against him and three have been filed and no action was taken against him on the basis of Sanha report dated 18-6-1985; and the action was malicious and due to political rivalries; that, he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in his defence, as no summons were at all issued for the attendance of his defence witnesses and respectable witnesses could not attend the Court; that, in those circumstances the orders passed by the Distt Magistrate dated 29-3-1988 as also the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 26-4-1988 are illegal, and are liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S. P. Sinha and the learned Govt. Advocate, Shri O. P. Namdeo heard. Record perused.

4. The main thrust of the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel Shri Sinha relates to three points. First, it is contended that the District Magistrate, as also the appellate authority which confirmed the externment orders, had acted on state materials. The impugned orders have been passed under section 12(b) which provision reads as follows:

12. Removal of persons about to commit offence. -- Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate:

(a) *** *** ***

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property; or

*** *** ***

5. It is urged, that the long history of