The court emphasized the requirement for close proximity of the earlier offences committed or abetted from the date of the externment order and the necessity for clear evidence that witnesses are not willing to testify due to apprehension for their safety or property.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 24.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Indore in appeal affirming the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by District Magistrate, Khandwa in Externment Case No.24/2016 whereby the District Magistrate has passed the order invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Khandwa submitted a report on 6.10.2016 in respect of petitioner Ganesh @ Gannu on the ground that he is a resident of village Borisaray, Police Station new Harsood, District Khandwa and he is continuously involved in criminal activities since 2008 and his presence in the city has created serious law and order situation and as such no person is coming forward to depose against him in the court of law.

3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this behalf by the District Magistrate Khandwa and a reply was also filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice although neither the show cause notice nor the reply is placed along with the writ petition.

4. Considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the District Magistrate passed the order dated 29.11.2016 whereby the petitioner is prohibited to enter into the boundaries of District East Nimar, Khandwa and the adjoining districts i.e. Burhanpur, Khargone, Dewas, Betul, Harda and Indore for a period of one year.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that false proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for the reason that although the petitioner is said to be involved in as many as 16 criminal cases but he has been acquitted in 11 cases and 5 cases are still pending. The learned counsel has also filed copies of orders of acquittal.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a patent illegality has been committed by the District Magistrate in not recording satisfaction regarding the apprehension in the minds of the victims to depose against the petitioner and no clear cut opinion has been formed by the learned District Magistrate which has resulted in passing the impugned order. In support of his contention, earned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs State of M.P. and others reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 434.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order either by the District Magistrate or by the Commissioner in an appeal as the petitioner is a habitual offender being involved in as many as 16 offences under various penal provisions including IPC, M.P. Excise Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Arms Act, SC/ST Act and his record clearly reveals that he is a man of criminal antecedent and cannot be restrained merely by registering cases against him.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner has been externed only on the ground that as many as 16 criminal cases were registered against him from the year 2008 to 2016. It is also apparent from this order that the District Magistrate, Khandwa has taken into account the offences committed by the petitioner from 2008 to 2013 only whereas there is no reference to any of the offences committed by the petitioner from 2014 to 2016 and it is only mentioned that after 2013, the petitioner was involved in 9 other offences under different sections and also that the acquittal of the petitioner from the 11 offences does not mean that he has not committed any offence. Thus, the cardinal principle governing order of externment has been given a complete go-bye, i.e. the proximity of the earlier offences actually committed or abetted from the date of the impugned order.

10. In the