ORDER

1. The petitioner has called in question, order dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate, Shahdol, whereby, in exercise of power under sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1990”) externment of the petitioner from District Shahdol, Sidhi, Satna, Umaria and Anuppur for a period of one year has been directed. The order dated 6.7.2021 was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal under section 9 of the Act of 1990 before the Commissioner, Shahdol who has also dismissed the same on 16.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) and hence, the petitioner in the instant petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was served with the show cause notice dated 20.3.2020 which is available at Page No.34 of the reply filed by the State to show cause as to why an action for externment of the petitioner should not be taken. Thereafter, because of Covid-19 Pandemic, the matter could not be proceeded. However, the petitioner was served with another show cause notice dated 2.3.2021 to which the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 6.7.2021. According to him, all cases mentioned in the show cause notice were old and stale cases. There were no serious charges against the petitioner and more importantly for last about one year, there was not a single case registered against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the reply or giving any opportunity of hearing, some witnesses appears to have been examined behind his back. He submits that taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in various cases, the order of externment deserves to be set aside. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. [2009 (4) MPLJ 434], Sanju @ Sanjay Ben v. State of M.P. And Ors. [2005 (4) MPHT 102], Kala v. State of M.P. [2004 (4) MPLJ 234], Raghuwanshi v. State of M.P. [2914 (4) MPLI 654], Pappu v. State of M.P. 2007 (1) JLJ 274 = [2007 (3) MPLJ 115], Dharmendra Singh v. State of M.P. [2007 (2) MPLJ 108], Meena Sonkar v. State of M.P. [2017 (2) MPLJ 565] and Chandra Prakash @ Tinku Pandey v. The State of M.P. & others [W.P.No.11825/2021(Order dated 18.11.2021) [Reported in 2021 (4) JLJ 643].

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the petition and she submits that the petitioner is a habitual criminal against whom there are 11 cases and considering his anti-social and criminal activities since 2009, the authority has taken action for externment. According to her, the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol vide his report dated 6.11.2019 informed the District Magistrate that because of continuous criminal activity of the petitioner and the fact that the people of the locality does not feel safe, therefore, the action of externment was proposed to be taken. She states that the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing. His reply was considered and statement of witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Soni and Surya Prakash Chouhan were recorded and therefore, the action of externment is strictly in accordance with law, the same does not call for any interference. She places reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Arvind Singh @ Pappu v. State of M.P., [2017 (4) MPLJ 579].

5. This Court has perused the record and it is seen that neither in order passed by the District Magistrate, nor in the report dated 6.11.2019 submitted by the concerned Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, it is mentioned as to how the movement or acts of the petitioner is causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the other person or their property. The important aspects of the mandate of Clause (b) of section 5 i.e. to reasonably believe that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII, or under section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Co