The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders must be based on sufficient and current evidence, and the authorities must show proper application of mind and consideration of the individual's past acquittals.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the legality and validity of the orders dated 7/12/2016 passed by respondent no.2 and 29/09/2016 passed by respondent no.3 have been challenged by the mother of the respondent no.6 whereby the respondent no.6 has been externed in terms of the provisions of section 5 (a) and (b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter shall be referred as "the Adhiniyam" in short) and the respondent no.6 has been prohibited from entering in District Jabalpur and surrounding District Seoni, Mandla, Dindori, Damoh, Katni and Narsinghpur for a period of one year.

2. While assailing the legality and validity of the impugned orders, counsel for the petitioner put-forth the following submissions:-

(a) That the order of externment has been passed in abuse of the powers conferred u/s 5 (a) of the Adhiniyam as on the basis of almost same material, on earlier three occasions, the authority had instituted the proceedings for externment and the authority did not find sufficient material to pass an order of externment. Hence, on the basis of the same material the authority could not have passed the order of externment.

(b) The impugned order is passed on the basis of criminal cases which are old and stale and the offences which have been taken into consideration do not have close proximity to the date on which the order is passed. Thus, the orders impugned are arbitrary and suffer from non-application of mind.

(c) The new six cases registered against the respondent no.6 during the pendency of the externment proceedings are registered at the instance of one person/objector Deepu Patel who holds a political grudge against the respondent no.6. All those cases are minor offence and bailable.

(d) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. and others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 434 the orders impugned are further bad in law as the authorities have failed to consider the compliance of the second condition of section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 as the District Magistrate has to record his satisfaction for passing an order of externment that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property.

3. Per contra, the respondents denied the case of the petitioner and submitted that the externment order and the appellate order passed on the basis of the material available against the respondent no.6. They relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police, dated 19/06/2015 (Annexure R/1). It is also submitted that the orders have been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and with due application of mind taking into consideration the six cases which were registered against the petitioner during pendency of the proceedings. He was served with show cause notice and reply was filed by him. The authority has found that in the interest of persons of the society and to maintain peace and tranquility, the proceedings were taken up u/s 5 (a) and (b) of the Act, 1990.

4. Though no one appeared on behalf of the Objector Deepu @ Deepak Patel but in the written objection it is submitted that objector has lodged a FIR on 15/09/2016 for commission of offences u/s 506 and 294 of IPC. It is alleged that the said matter is pending for investigation. It is also alleged that the mother of the objector has also made a complaint against the petitioner's son. It is stated that petitioner has filed a PIL before this Court and the same has been disposed of by this Court with an observation to the Superintendent of Police to look into the grievance of the objector.

5. The brief facts of the present case, in short, are that on the basis of a police report dated 2/05/2008 an externment case no. 19/2008 was reg