The past conduct of a person can be considered in making a detention order, and detailed reasons for externment orders are not required to protect the identity of witnesses unwilling to depose in public.

JUDGMENT

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P/5) passed in case No.0080/APPEAL/22 by the respondent no.3 affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal dated 12.04.2022 whereby the order of externment has been passed against the petitioner directing him not to enter in the area of District Bhopal and its adjoining Districts Vidisha, Sehore, Rajgarh, Raisen and Narmadapuram for a period of six months.

2. The facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that the name of the petitioner was continuously involved in the criminal activities since the year 1994 and is in the habit of creating terror amongst general public. The Superintendent of Police (Northern Region) District Bhopal submitted a proposal to the District Magistrate, Bhopal about criminal activities of the petitioner. The police authorities have enumerated details of chain of criminal offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner from the year 1994 to 2021 and has requested for externment order to be passed against the petitioner in exercise of the powers under Sections 3 to 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1990').

3. The District Magistrate then issued a show cause notice dated 21.12.2021 to the petitioner to show cause why proceedings of externment should not be initiated against him.

4. The petitioner had submitted the reply and asked the time to defend the evidence/ argument. The time was granted for the same. The District Magistrate framed the following issues for consideration :-

5. The District Magistrate on the basis of report received from the Superintendent of Police and after considering the material available on record including the statements of the witnesses, recorded in the Camera proceedings who have deposed that the petitioner is a very dangerous criminal and because of fear people refrain from going to the Courts for recording of the evidence. It is also evident from the statements that public at large is under fear in the vicinity where he resides and there is strong feeling of insecurity amongst the public at large. The District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 and ordered for externment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Division Bhopal, District Bhopal. The appellate authority vide order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P/5) confirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of externment has been issued without due application of mind and the same is contrary to Sections 8 and 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The impugned order is also contrary to Section 5(a)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 as no case under the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner after 2009. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.11473/2022 in which directions were issued to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990.

The Appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It was further contended that the District Magistrate is required to give the finding that the movement or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a person or property. Lastly, it is submitted that no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order being non-speaking deserves to be set aside.

7. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Ashu @ Assu @ Asish Jain @ Ankush Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ 367 to contend that though the order of externment has been passed against the petitioner