The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fresh externment order to consider an entirely different set of cases that did not constitute a part of the earlier proceedings against the petitioner, and the significance of the nature and timing of the offences, as well as the requirement of material showing the unavailability of witnesses to give evidence against the proposed externee.

ORDER :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur whereby he upheld the order of the District Magistrate dated 28.7.2020, whereby the Collector had externed the petitioner from Jabalpur District and other adjoining districts for a period of one year. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. On 6.11.2016, the petitioner was externed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur for a period of six months. The said order was challenged in appeal. The same was confirmed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur. Thereafter, on 23.6.2018, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur forwarded an application to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur for proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Avam Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1990. It was registered as case No. 6/2018 and 16 cases pending against the petitioner were tendered along with application by the Superintendent of Police. Vide order dated 29.9.2018, the Collector Jabalpur passed an order of externment against the petitioner for a period of one year, vide order dated 29.9.2018. The said order of externment was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur who allowed the appeal, quashed the order of externment passed by the Collector.

3. Thereafter on 22.3.2020 an incident took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khamariya and Crime No. 184/2020 was registered four months later on 8.7.2020 for offences punishable under sections 327, 427, 294, 506 and 34 IPC by the complainant Gaurav Dixit. But for the offence under section 327, the remaining offences were all bailable. On 8.7.2020, the SHO of PS Khamariya forwarded the FIR dated 8.7.2020, to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur vide his order of even date, forwarded the letter to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur and on 10.7.2020, Nirupa Pandey, ASI at PS Khamariya swore an affidavit where she levelled allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he was a habitual offender and was creating a law- and-order situation in the vicinity of Dumna Airport by extorting money and intimidating persons. On 17.7.2020 Nirupa Pandey, ASI was cross-examined wherein she deposed before the Court denying all the facts and evidence in the affidavit dated 10.7.2020 and she also categorically accepted the fact that the petitioner had not committed any offence between 2017 to 2020. However, the same notwithstanding, the District Magistrate vide order dated 28.7.2020 passed the order externing the petitioner for a period of one year from Jabalpur and other adjoining districts.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed against the aforementioned order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner Jabalpur Division dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Magistrate.

5. The challenge to the said impugned order is on the following brief grounds. The first one being that those cases which constituted the formation of opinion by the District Magistrate with regard to the proceedings of 2018 where the order of externment was passed against the petitioner, which was however, quashed by the Commissioner on appeal, the said list of cases could not have been considered while passing the second order of externment. It is further argued that only one FIR was registered against the petitioner on 8.7.2020 and that too belatedly after a passage of four months for an incident stated to have been committed on 22.3.2020.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has argued that there is nothing perverse in the order impugned and that the District Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and only thereafter passed the order of externment, which has been upheld in appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties perused the petition and the documents filed therewith and also taken into consideration the judgments placed b