( 1. ) SHRI Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. SHRI S. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents.

( 2. ) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the Competent Authority on 30th March, 2010 exercising powers under section 5A of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 9-7-2010 affirming the order of Competent Authority, petitioner has filed this writ petition. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15-1-2010 vide Annexure P/1 indicating to the petitioner as to why proceedings should not be held against him for externment under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 in view of the reasons indicated therein. In para 2 of show cause details of 10 cases were indicated. Out of the ten cases 7 cases were prior to 2007 and three cases at Srl. No. 8, 9 and 10 were of the year 2008 and 2009 respectively. Petitioner's reply to the show cause being found to be unsatisfactory the competent authority passed an order Annexure P/3 on 30th March, 2010 directing for externment of petitioner from the Districts Mandla, Jabalpur, Balaghat, Seoni and Dindori for a period of one year. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure P/4 and the appeal having been rejected vide Annexure P/5, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through the reasons given by the Appellate Authority and the cases filed against the petitioner indicated that out of the ten cases indicated therein petitioner has been exonerated/acquitted in more than eight cases and only two cases are pending for the present and they are under sections 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Contending that the order of externment is passed without following the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. and others, 2009(4) MPLJ 434 = 2009(4) M.P.H.T. 263 (DB), learned counsel seeks for interference into the matter.

( 3. ) SHRI S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that as the petitioner is not honorably acquitted in most of the cases, the cases have been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, it is argued that no interference into the matter is called for and the petition be dismissed.

( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the law laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra), it is clear that the order of externment can be passed if it is found that the person concerned is engaged in conducting that such offence has close proximity to the order of externment that in the opinion of the District Magistrate, and the witnesses are not coming forward or not willing to give evidence in public against such person further there is apprehension of danger to society at large and the same is so grave that removal of a person from the District is necessary. If the case in hand is evaluated in the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, it is seen that neither the Competent Authority nor the Appellate Authority has recorded any such finding to the effect that in the criminal cases witnesses are not coming to testify against him nor it is held that his presence will endanger the normal life in the area concerned. Petitioner is only involved in about 10 cases, out of which in 8 cases he has been acquitted, even though in 6 cases he has been acquitted on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the two cases which are pending against the petitioner are under sections 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner's case come within the category which are specified under section 5-A of the Act of 1990 and are crystallized by the Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra) in the following manner :-

"8. ... Hence, if a person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an offence of the type