1. In this petition, petitioner has assailed order (P-1) and appellate order (P-3). Order (P-1) was passed by the Additional District Magistrate. Order (P-3) has been passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh rejecting an appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner's externment has been ordered for one year as per order dated 1.11.2003 from the Districts of Bhopal, Raisen, Sehore, Rajgarh and Hoshangabad, under M.P. Rajya Suraksha, Adhiniyam.

2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is a businessman and involved in the sale of spectacles. Police has never recorded any FIR against the petitioner in any police station. Petitioner has earned displeasure of the Town Inspector in the year 2003. He has registered two cases in the year 2003 against him. Firs information report dated 14.2.2003 was registered on the complaint of one Annu @ Anwar on the allegation that the petitioner had abused him. On 7.4.2003 another complaint regarding satta (gambling) has been registered. On 9.5.2003, another case of gambling was registered in the same police station Petitioner pleaded guilty in one of the cases. Fine was imposed. On 11.6.2003 another complaint lodged by one Santosh has been registered on the ground that the petitioner had abused him. Against Santosh, several criminal cases are pending. On 28.7.2003, one Virender Jain also made a report against the petitioner in the same police station on the allegation that the petitioner had abused him. On 28.7.2003 another complaint has beer registered and a case has been registered u/s 110, CrPC. Yet another complaint has been registered on 3.10.2003, that he hurled abuses and created scene in front of liquor shop.

3. Superintendent of Police had sent, report to Additional District Magistrate for taking action against the petitioner under section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Surkasha, Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'). No evidence was recorded against the petitioner in his presence. The witnesses to be produced by the petitioner were not examined. The Additional District Magistrate, as per order dated 21.11.2003, has ordered his externment from the above districts Appeal has also been dismissed by State Government. Action taken is arbitrary Action could have been taken by the ‘District Magistrate', not by the Additional District Magistrate. There were no grounds to attract the provisions of section 5 of the Adhiniyam. There was no material to record satisfaction as contemplated under sections 5 (a) and 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam.

4. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted that several cases were registered against the petitioner relating to gambling, satta and rioting. Petitioner is a habitual offender. It is denied that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to examine the witnesses. The statements of Ali Hussain, Mukhir Jamadar were recorded Order passed by Additional District Magistrate is proper. Additional District Magistrate is conferred with the powers as per notification (R-2) to exercise the powers under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam. Hence, no interference is called for.

5. Shri H.S. Ruprah, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the, petitioner, has submitted that the, impugned orders are illegal. There was no material to form an opinion as provided u/s 5 (a) and 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam. Except in one case of gambling, conviction has no been recorded. He has further submitted that conviction incase of Gambling Act is immaterial as action has not been taken u/s 6 of the Adhiniyam, even otherwise in any other case, petitioner has not been convicted. Cases are petty in nature. It is not the allegation that the petitioner ha inflicted any serious injury to anybody Thus, the formation of opinion that the activity of the petitioner is to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property is without basis. Name of any of the witnesses who may not have come forward to depose