The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely and effective preventive action under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, and the flaws in the order due to inordinate delay and failure to consider the statement of object and reasons of the Adhiniyam.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.9.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed in an appeal by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, District Hoshangabad whereby the order of externment dated 23.5.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate, Harda has been affirmed. Vide impugned order dated 23.5.2017, the petitioner has been externed from the district Harda and its contiguous districts viz. Hoshangabad, Khandwa, Dewas, Sehore and Betul and their revenue limits for a period of one year.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of village Baranga, Tehsil Khirkiya District Harda having certain criminal antecedents. On 9.6.2015 the Superintendent of Police, Harda submitted a report against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Harda proposing initiation of action against him under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam of 1990’). On such report a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner on 11.6.2015, the petitioner filed his reply on 14.7.2015 refuting the allegations levelled against him in the show cause notice and the District Magistrate Harda after considering the petitioner's reply and evidence on record has passed the order on 23.5.2017. Against the aforesaid order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2017 by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the show cause notice, it is mentioned that the petitioner is involved inasmany as 15 cases and in most of the cases the petitioner has already been acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction although some cases are pending but in those cases also the petitioner has also been bailed out by the Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before passing the impugned order the District Magistrate has not formed the opinion regarding the efficacy to invoke the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1990 to extern the petitioner for a period of one year. It is further submitted that no witnesses have come out to corroborate the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to invoke the provisions of Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam of 1990.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that an appropriate order has been passed by the authorities looking to the serious nature of the offences in which the petitioner was found to be involved and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order. He has also placed on record the original record relating with the case.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record produced by the respondents/State.

7. In the present case, a notice under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 was issued to the petitioner on 11.6.2015. The reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by the petitioner on 14.7.2015 i.e. within a period of one month only. Thereafter the petitioner has also sought time to bring on record certain documents and even those documents were submitted by him on 30.11.2015. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time from 15.12.2015 to 25.4.2017 and during this period the statements of witnesses were also recorded. The persons whose statements have been recorded, all of them are the officers of the Police Department itself and no efforts have been made to examine any person from the area of activities of the present petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that he has already been acquitted in most of the cases in which he was tried and in other cases he has been released on bail.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned District Magistrate whil