Old and stale cases cannot be considered for externment, and there must be a live link between the activities and the necessity of externment. Specific findings and the recording of reasons are essential for such orders.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 2-2-2022 passed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Appeal No. 169/Appeal/2021-22 and order dated 6-8-2021 passed by District Magistrate, Gwalior in Case No. 4/Cr.P.C./2021, by which an order of externment has been passed against the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 25-6-2021 a show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Vidisha under section 5 of Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why an order of externment may not be passed against him for a period of one year as the petitioner is involved in criminal activities, as a result, social atmosphere of the area is getting affected and the criminal cases registered against him and the preventive measures also could not control his criminal activities. Members of society are living under apprehension, which is adversely affecting the law and order situation as well as peace ad tranquility in the society. It appears that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Vidisha. From the impugned order dated 6-8-2021 passed by District Magistrate, Vidisha, it is clear that on 6-7-2021 and 12-7-2021, the petitioner sought time to file reply, but no reply was filed and accordingly, final order dated 6-8-2021 was passed by the District Magistrate, Vidisha after considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which too has been dismissed by order dated 2-2-2022 (Annexure P/1).

3. Challenging the order passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have considered the stale and old cases for passing an order of externment against the petitioner. It is well established principle of law that old and stale cases cannot be taken into consideration as the order of externment adversely affects the life and liberty of a person, which cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed by District Magistrate without supplying the necessary documents.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents have supported the findings recorded by the authorities.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Arvind Singh @ Pappu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2017(4) M.P.L.J. 579, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: –

“8. A plain reading of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 quoted above, would show that for passing an order of externment against a person, two conditions must be satisfied : – (i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in 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 Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence; and (ii) In the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.”

7. The order of externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstance. By passing an order of externment fundamental right of a person of free movement throughout the territory of India is curtailed and, therefore, it must withstand the test of reasonableness. The order of externment should be sparingly used. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. by judgment dated 28-1-2022 passed in CRA No. 139/2022 has held as under : –

“4. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constit