The order of externment cannot be sustained on the basis of old and stale activities. The requirements of the Act must be satisfied, and the person must be involved in alleged activities at the time when the order is proposed to be made.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.:-

Shri Umesh Gajankush learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Neelam Abhyankar, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard finally with consent.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 2-4-2014, Annexure P-3, passed by District Magistrate in respect of externment of petitioner from District Dhar and adjoining districts for a period of six months and also the order dated 15-5-2014 passed by Commissioner rejecting the appeal.

2. In brief, the petitioner who is the resident of Pithampur District Dhar was served with the notice dated 7-11-2013 initiating the proceedings for externment under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short the Act). The petitioner had filed reply dated 13-11-2013. Thereafter the impugned order of externment dated 2-4-2014 under section 5(a)(b) and 6(c) of the Act was passed by the District Magistrate which has been confirmed in appeal.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner challenging the impugned order submits that petitioner is a representative of workers union and cases were registered against the petitioner at the behest of management. He has submitted that out of seven cases on which reliance has been placed, compromise was arrived at in five cases but that aspect of the matter has not been considered. He has further submitted that the District Magistrate has failed to consider that requirements of section 5(b) of the Act are not satisfied and that in the report of Superintendent of Police even section 6(c) of the Act was not mentioned. He has also submitted that the order of externment has been based upon the old and stale cases.

4. Counsel for State has opposed the writ petition by submitting that the order of externment has been passed on the basis of cogent and relevant material.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The record reveals that the order of externment is based upon seven cases which have been registered against the petitioner. Counsel for petitioner has pointed out that out of these seven cases, mentioned in the list Annexure R-2 cases from serial No. 1 to 5 have ended in compromise. He has pointed out that this fact was pointed out to the District Magistrate in the reply but all these cases have been shown to be pending in the impugned order.

7. The record also reveals that the order of externment is based upon the old and stale cases. Since the cases from serial No. 2 to 6 were registered between the year 2004 to 2011 and the order of externment has been passed on 2-4-2014 therefore it could not have been passed on the basis of cases registered against the petitioner in 2011 or prior to that. There is only one case which was registered in the year 2013. Thus, the cases on the basis of which the order of externment has been passed are not in proximity of time of passing of order.

8. This Court in the matter of Narish Bilwar vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in (2009) ILR 2173 while considering the earlier judgments on the point has held as under:-

"12. This Court in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Ben vs. State of M.P. 2005(4) MPHT 102, referring to earlier judgments on this point held that:

8. It is also contended by him that old and stale activities cannot 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 vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 613, Ayubkhan vs. State of M.P. and another, 1994(1) Vibh 168, Bala @ Iqbal vs. Additional Collector, Indore, 1995 Cr.L.J. (M.P.) 72, Nyaju @ Niyas Modh vs. State of M.P. 2000(1) JLJ 321, Jokhu vs. District Magistrate, Ujjain, 2000(1) MPHT 554.

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 mad