The main legal point established in the judgment is that for passing an order of externment, there must be sufficient material and the offense must have close proximity to the date of the order. Old and stale cases cannot be considered as grounds for externment.

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

1. In the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of externment passed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 [for brevity 'the Act'] by the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad and also the order passed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, respondent No.2, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order.

2. On 2-6-2016 notices were issued to the respondents and the counsel appearing for the State was directed to seek instructions in the matter. On 8-11-2016 counsel for the respondents sought for two weeks time to file reply and he was directed to keep the relevant records available before the Court on the next date. Again, on 29- 11-2016 time was prayed for on behalf of the respondents. On 6-12- 2016 again time was sought for by the respondents. Thereafter on 8-12-2016 the matter was fixed in the week commencing 19-12-2016 to enable the counsel for the respondents to file reply.

3. Despite number of opportunities having been granted reply was not filed on behalf of the respondents. On 20-12-2016 this Court passed the following order:

"Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State.

As prayed for on behalf of the respondents ten days time is granted to file reply.

List in the week commencing 9th January 2017.

It is made clear if no reply is filed, the matter will be heard on the basis of record available."

4. Today, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the record is available and the matter may be decided in absence of reply on the basis of the record available, as directed by this Court on 20-12-2016.

5. Considering the nature of the petition and the previous orders passed by this Court, the petition is heard finally.

The petitioner has submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Hoshahgabad submitted a report before the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad complaining that the petitioner is indulged in criminal activities and also involved in various offences. He recommended for taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of sections 5(b) and 6-A of the Act removing the petitioner outside of the District Hoshangabad and also its contiguous Districts viz. Raisen, Sehore, Harda, Betul, Chhindwara and Narsinghpur. Along with his recommendation he has enclosed a list of criminal cases in which the petitioner is alleged to be involved.

6. On the basis of the said report a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner and he has filed reply to the said notice and submitted that most of the alleged criminal cases relate to the period 1999 to 2015. He also submitted that on the basis of the same record from the year 1999 to 2008, earlier proceeding for externment was initiated against him and thereafter in the year 2008 on the basis of the same record, the recommendation for externment was sent by the Office of the Superintendent of Police Hoshangabad. The District Magistrate, Hoshangabad passed order on 29-12-2008 and did not find any ground for passing an order of externment under Section 5 of the Act. He passed an order for furnishing a personal bond. A copy the said order has been placed as Annexure-P/7 on record.

7. A notice was issued to the petitioner. In the reply he submitted that most of the criminal cases against him were of minor nature and were not within the close proximity on the date on which the order of externment was proposed to passed. He also alleged that action was taken against him because of personal bias of the Superintendent of Police Hoshangabad against whom the father of the petitioner had made a written complaint to the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh.

8. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Stat