The court emphasized the essential ingredients of Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, and highlighted the requirement for close proximity of the commission of the offense to the date of the order, as well as the need for satisfaction of the District Magistrate regarding the unwillingness of witnesses to come forward due to apprehension for their safety.

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the legality and validity of the order dated 9-10-2017 passed by the respondent No.3 has been challenged whereby the petitioner has been externed under the provisions of Section 5(a) and (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1990’] and further challenge has been made to the order dated 6-12-2017 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the order of externment has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. By the impugned order the petitioner has been externed from entering into the District Katni and its contiguous districts – Jabalpur, Satna, Damoh and Panna for a period of one year.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are that on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Katni (respondent No.3) dated 27-01-2017 to the District Magistrate, Katni to the effect that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since 1998 and he is spreading his terror to the local public. It is further alleged that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities and there are 23 criminal cases registered against the petitioner which have been mentioned in the impugned order. On the basis of the said report proceedings for externment were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him.

4. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and pleadings that the respondent No.4 by concealing the material and actual facts submitted his reply, because many cases instituted against the petitioner have already been closed and he has been acquitted. In those cases only few cases are pending wherein he has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been given a reasonable and fair opportunity in the proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of permission of cross-examination of the witnesses but the same was rejected and opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of externment has not been passed in accordance with the provisions envisaged under Section 5 of the Act 1990. The criminal cases shown to be registered against the petitioner do not constitute any alarm, danger or harm to person or property, which are essential ingredients of Section 5(a) of the Act and also there are no ingredients of clause (b) of Section 5. In the present case there is no material for recording satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of the offence involving criminal force, violence or offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code or in the abatement of any such offence and the other. There is also no opinion of the District Magistrate that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in the public, because of any apprehension of their safety of their person or property. Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the appellate Authority has passed the order without independent application of mind and the appellate order is nothing but jut confirmation of the order passed by the District Magistrate.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents denied the cases of the petitioner and submitted that the externment order and the appellate order passed on the basis of the material available against the petitioner. He relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police.

7. Before adverting to the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner as discussed earlier and examining them on the anvil of the law prevailing in the field of externment, it is apt to refer the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Section 5 of the Act under which the order o