ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the legality and validity of the order dated 20.7.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Badwani under section 5 of MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act,1990’) externing the petitioner from the boundaries of District Badwani and contiguous District i.e. Dhar, Jhabua, Alirajpur, Khandwa, Khargone, Bhuranpur and Indore for a period of one year. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Indore dismissing the appeal under section 9 of the Act, 1990.

2. The facts adumbrated in nutshell are that on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Badwani to the District Magistrate, Badwani to the effect that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since 1992 and he has spread his terror to the local public the proceedings under the Act, 1990 were initiated by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Badwani. It is further alleged that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities and there are about 21 cases registered against him, which have been mentioned in the impugned order. On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner initiating the proceedings under the Act, 1990. Despite serviced of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent No.2 and he was proceeded ex-partie. The respondent No.2 on the basis of report of respondent No.3 and the material passed the impugned order of externment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of externment submitted that in the report of the Superintendent of Police, the old and stale cases have been mentioned in the said list. It is further submitted that out of 21 cases, only four cases are said to be pending against him. The aforesaid cases are at serial No.13,15,17 and 21. The cases at serial No.13 relates to offence under sections 353,341,352 of the IPC and the offence at serial No.15 and 17 relates to the offence under section 188 of the IPC. The case at serial No.21 relates to the offence under section 379 of the IPC. The cases are old and stale. It is further submitted that the offence which are said to be registered in the year 2000 and 2001 are only in nature of preventive action taken by the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of externment has been passed without compliance of provision of section 5-B of the Act, 1990. It is argued that the District Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public due to apprehension of their safety and therefore, the order of externment is bad in law. In support of his submission, he places reliance of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of MP and Ors reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 434 and also the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Meena Sonkar v. State of MP and Ors reported in 2017 (2) MPLJ 565 and in the case of Jahangeer Alvi v. State of MP and Ors reported in 2017 (3) MPLJ 667 and also the judgment in the case of Istfaq Mohammad v. State of MP and Ors reported in 2018 (3) MPLJ 349.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state denied the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the externment order and the appellate order passed on the basis of material available against the petitioner. He relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police.

6. Before adverting to the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner as discussed earlier and examining them on the anvil of the law prevailing in the field of externment, it is apt to refer the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Section 5 of the Act under which the order of externment has been passed is quoted hereinbe