ORDER

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed against him for externment under the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short Adhiniyam, 1990) by District Magistrate, Alirajpur and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of externment.

2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of report of Superintendent of Police, a show cause notice for externment was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and submitted that the cases which are alleged to be registered against the petitioner are old and stale cases. In two cases, he has already been acquitted and two cases are of very petty nature in which small penalty has been imposed and rest cases are pending for trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the competent authority is contrary to the provisions of section 5(A) and 5(B) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and the order is passed on the old and stale cases. There is no objective consideration by the competent authority. The order is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of MP reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 434 and the other judgments decided in the case of Chandra Pakash @ Tinku Pandey v. State of MP reported in 2022(1) MPLJ 556, Meena Sonkar v. State of MP reported in 2017(2) MPLJ 565 and Vinod v. State of MP reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 650 and also the judgment passed in the case of Lacchu @ Laxman v. State of MP reported in 2022 (2) MPLJ 362. He further relied on a recent judgment by the apex Court in the case of Deepak v. State of MP reported in AIR 2022 SC 1241 while considering the para-materia provision of Maharashtra Police Act, the apex Court held that the order of externment restraining the accused from entering a particular area infringes his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Hence, restriction imposed by order of externment must stand test of reasonableness.

4. It is further held that the competent authority must record its satisfaction of existence of the grounds for externment on the basis of objective material placed before it.

5. He further submitted that that the authorities have failed to record satisfaction in the impugned order regarding second requirement of section 5(B) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. He has not recorded his satisfaction on the basis of material that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in the judgment against the petitioner by a reason and apprehension as regards to their safety. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on merit is nothing but repetition of the order passed by the District Magistrate without any application of mind.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state supported the order passed by the respondent and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has five criminal cases registered against him. He is actively involved in the criminal activities since 2006. In the year 2021, an FIR was lodged for commission of offence under section 294, 323, 506 of the IPC.

7. It is submitted that the District Magistrate after objective consideration of the material has passed the impugned order. There is no illegality in the same warranting any interference in the writ petition.

8. 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 hereinbelow:-

"5. Removal of persons about to commit offence.- whenever it appears to the District Magistrate:-

(a) tha