The discretion of the District Magistrate and the sufficiency of material to pass an externment order under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.

With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21/12/2010 passed against him for externment under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for brevity, 'Act of 1990') by the District Magistrate, Dist. Bhind and the appellate order dated 17/10/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena rejecting the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of externment.

3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the Superintendent of Police, Dist. Bhind has submitted report dated 14/01/2010 to the District Magistrate, Bhind about criminal activities of the petitioner. In the report, the concerning police station had submitted details of chain of criminal offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner from 1990 to 2009 and had made request that an externment order be passed against the petitioner in exercise of power under sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1990. The District Magistrate, Dist. Bhind had issued a notice dated 21/06/2010 to show cause why a proceeding for order of externment from District Bhind as also the Districts touching the revenue limits of adjacent Districts, namely, Datia, Morena and Gwalior should not be initiated against him, and asked the petitioner to submit his reply on 29/07/2010. The petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 29/07/2010 and submitted reply denying that he had committed offences alleged in the show cause notice. The District Magistrate, Bhind fixed the case for hearing on 12/08/2010. The petitioner did not appear before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 12/08/2010, inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been served notice for the same. On 26/08/2010 ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Bhind and vide impugned order dated 21/12/2010 directed externment of the petitioner from District Bhind as also the Districts touching the revenue limits of adjacent Districts, namely, Datia, Morena and Gwalior for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 9 of the Act of 1990 before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, but by order dated 17/10/2011, Commissioner dismissed the appeal.

4. Mr. H.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material before the District Magistrate for passing the order of externment under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. He submitted that notice was issued on the ground that there are 11 criminal cases registered against the petitioner in different police station and on account of terror around, the public are not living peacefully and there is criminal atmosphere.

5. The petitioner in his reply before the District Magistrate has invited attention of this Court to the fact that on account of political rivalry and village politics, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in most of the criminal cases. However, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court in five criminal cases and in rest of the criminal cases witnesses are not appearing. Looking to such conduct, the Superintendent of Police, Dist. Bhind also requested the District Magistrate, Dist. Bhind vide letter dated 06/09/2010 that the proceedings under the Act of 1990 against the petitioner does not appear to be reasonable so the same may be withdrawn. The District Magistrate, Dist. Bhind proceeded further without considering the request for withdrawal and unilaterally ex-parte proceedings were conducted and the order of externment has been passed, therefore, this is a fit case in which the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate, Dist. Bhind and the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena deserve to be quashed for contravention of different provisions of the Act of 1990.

6. Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State submitted that the order passed by the District M