The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders must satisfy the requirements of close proximity to the offense, objective consideration, and satisfaction of the District Magistrate, and cannot be based on old and stale cases.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of externment dated 23.03.2022, whereby, the petitioner has been externed from entering in the District of Alirajpur as well as near district namely Jhabua, Dhar, Badwani and some other districts of Gujrat for six months.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 9 of the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short Adhiniyam, 1990) before the respondent no.2.

4 .The said appeal has been partly allowed and the order of externment has been set aside to the extent of districts belonging to the other states but the remaining part of the order has been affirmed.

5. The facts of the case are that on the basis of report of Superintendent of Police, Alirajpur, a show cause notice for externment was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the reply to the said notice and thereafter, the District Magistrate passed the order of externment on 23.03.2022, which has been partly set aside.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a congress political party. He was elected on the post of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat Jamali Badi Tehsil Jobat District Alirajpur. After completion of the tenure as Sarpanch, he was appointed as Pradhan in Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is also a Congress Block President of Udaygarh Block District Alirajpur. The order of externment has been passed on political consideration.

7. 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 Vs. State of MP reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 434 and the other judgments decided in the case of Chandra Pakash @ Tinku Pandey Vs. State of MP reported in 2022(1) MPLJ 556, Meena Sonkar Vs. State of MP reported in 2017(2) MPLJ 565 and Vinod Vs. State of MP reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 650 and also the judgment passed in the case of Lacchu @ Laxman Vs. 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 Vs. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 2005. Recently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at police station Udaygarh and twice