The court ruled that externment orders require substantial evidence and must not infringe on fundamental rights without clear justification.

ORDER :

Vinay Saraf, J.

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Collector/ District Magistrate District-Anuppur on 08.04.2024 under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the order passed by Commissioner, Shahdol Division Shahdol on 16.08.2024 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order of externment.

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

3. Mr. Jai Shukla, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that upon the report of Superintendent of Police, Anuppur dated 12.01.2024 Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Anuppuur registered a case under Section 001/externment/2024 against the petitioner under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyyam, 1990. He further submits that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.02.2024, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 04.03.2024 when the petitioner submitted that he is not indulged in any criminal activity and thee report has been submitted by the Superintendent of Police on the basis of old cases. He further submits that earlier also the order was passed under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1990 and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Station Officer, Chachai District-Anuppur on every Tuesday at 12:00 PM for a period of 6 months and the petitioner has duly complied with the order and except one case i.e. Crime No. 51/2023 registered under Section 4(a) of Gambling Act no other case was registered against the petitioner however, once again the report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police without application of mind and the petitioner has been noticed for proposed externment. He further submits that on 08.04.2024, Collector-cum-District Magistrate passed the order of externment for a period of one year from the District-Anuppur and other adjacent districts i.e. Shahdol, Umaria and Dindoori. Order was assailed by thee petitioner before Revenue Commissioner, Shahdol Division-Shahddol in appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 16.08.2024 therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

4. Mr. Jai Shukla, Advocate submits that there was no material before the District Magistrate for passing the order of externment under Section 5(a) and (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990, as no case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or there is no allegation against the petitioner causing any danger or harm to any person or property. He further submits that undeer Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyaam, 1990 makes it clear that there must be reasonable grounds for beelieving that the person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving forrce of violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XIV and XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or inn abatement of any such offencce, however, a show-cause notice and the order passed by District Magistrate under Section 5(b) reflect that the offence is alleged to have been committed of the year 2003 to 20020. He further submits that there was no satisfaction recorded byy the District Magistrate to hold that the petitioner is engaged or is about to be engaged in a commission of offences. Since 2020, theere is only one case registered against the petitioner i.e. under Section 4 of the Gambling Act.

5. He further submits that Section 8(a)(1) of Adhiniyam, 1990 provides that before an order under Section 5 is passed against any person, the District Magistrate shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. After receipt of show-cause notice the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, which was not considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate and the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. He submits that the Collector has passed the