Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Rajjan Yadav v. The State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 18600 of 2020 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 31.5.2021
(1) Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (M.P.) -- S. 5 -- externment order -- two conditions required to be satisfied -- firstly, alleged offence should have close proximity to order of externment -- secondly, there has to be some material to show that witnesses were not coming forward to give statement against proposed externee. [Paras 7 to 9]
(2) Criminal Trial -- cross-examination -- is the only important tool in hands of wrong doer to prove his innocence -- not mere formality. [Para 12]
(3) Natural Justice -- compelling petitioner's counsel to argue matter finally before cross-examination of witness -- thereafter not giving any opportunity of hearing to argue in light of cross-examination of witness -- is complete go-by to principles of natural justice. [Para 12]
(4) Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (M.P.) -- S. 5 -- externment order -- no opportunity granted to petitioner to argue on basis of cross-examination of witness -- without considering nature of criminal cases registered against petitioner, its outcome, and whether stale cases can be taken into consideration for passing order of externment, District Magistrate jumped to conclusion that since one more criminal case was registered against petitioner in 2020, therefore his activities have made him liable for externment -- no discussion as to why activities of petitioner are detrimental to law and order -- impugned order lacks reasons -- clearly shows complete non-application of mind -- District Magistrate has acted malafidely and arbitrarily -- order of externment has serious civil as well as criminal consequences -- authorities should not adopt practice of cut and paste -- must pass reasoned orders -- externment order set aside. (2010) 9 SCC 496 followed. W.P. No. 18605 of 2020 decided on 9.2.2021 referred to. [Paras 12 to 14]
(5) Order -- reasons are heartbeat of order. (2010) 9 SCC 496 followed. [Para 13]
(6) Appeal -- right of appeal is not mere formality -- appellate authority should not act mechanically while deciding appeals -- should minutely scrutinize orders under challenge. [Para 15]
¼1½ jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 5 & fuokZlu vkns'k & nks 'krksZ dh iwfrZ vko';d & ÁFker% vfHkdfFkr vijk/k fuokZlu vkns'k ds lfUudV gksuk pkfg, & f}rh;r% ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dqN lkexzh vo'; gksuk pkfg, fd ÁLrkfor fuokZflrh ds fo#) dFku nsus ds fy, lk{khx.k vkxs ugha vk jgsA ¼iSjk 7 ls 9½
¼2½ nkafMd fopkj.k & Áfrijh{kk & viuh funksZf"krk lkfcr djus ds fy, nks"kdrkZ dks miyC/k ,dek= egRoiw.kZ lk/ku gS & ek= vkSipkfjdrk ughaA ¼iSjk 12½
¼3½ uSlfxZd U;k; & ;kph ds dkmUlsy dks lk{kh dh Áfrijh{kk ds iwoZ ekeys esa vafre :i ls cgl djus ds fy, foo'k djuk & rRi'pkr~ lk{kh dh Áfrijh{kk ds vkyksd esa lquokbZ dk volj ugha nsuk & uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dh iw.kZ mis{kk gSA ¼iSjk 12½
¼4½ jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1990 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 5 & fuokZlu vkns'k & ;kph dks lk{kh dh Áfrijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij cgl djus dk volj ugha fn;k x;k & ;kph ds fo#) jftLVªhÑr vkijf/kd ekeyksa dh ÁÑfr ij] muds ifj.kkeksa ij rFkk bl ij fopkj fd, fcuk fd fuokZlu dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, iqjkus ekeyksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS ;k ugha ftyk eftLVªsV vdLekr~ bl fu"d"kZ ij igqap x, fd 2020 esa ;kph ds fo#) ,d vkSj vkijkf/kd ekeyk jftLVªhÑr gqvk Fkk blfy, mlds fØ;kdykiksa us mls fuokZlu dk nk;h cuk fn;k gS & bl ckjs esa dksbZ foe'kZ ugha ;kph ds fØ;kdyki fof/k&OoLFkk ds fy, vfgrdj D;ksa gSa & vkf{kIr vkns'k esa dkj.kksa dk vHkko & euksfu;ksx dk vHkko Li"Vr% nf'kZr & ftyk eftLVªsV us vln~HkkoiwoZd vkSj euekuk dk;Z fd;k & fuokZlu ds vkns'k ds xaHkhj flfoy ifj.kkeksa ds lkFk gh nkafMd ifj.kke Hkh gksrs gSa & Ákf/kdkfj;ksa dks dkVks vkSj fpidkvks dh dk;Z Á.kkyh ugha viukuk pkfg, & ldkj.k vkns'k gh ikfjr djuk pkfg, & fuokZlu vkns'k vikLrA ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 496 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 18605 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 9-2-2021 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14½
¼5½ vkns'k & dkj.k vkns'k dh /kM+du gksrs gSaA ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13½
¼6½ vihy & vihy dk vf/kdkj vkSipkfjdrk ek= ugha & vihysa fofuf'pr djrs le; vihy Ákf/kdkjh dks ;a=or~ dk;Z ugha djuk pkfg, & vkf{kIr vkns'kksa dh lw{e laoh{kk djuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 15½
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to set aside the order of the Commissioner Jabalpur respondent no.1 dated 11.11.2020.
2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relieves in accordance with law.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an order of externment was passed on 6.11.2016 by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, which was complied by the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 26.3.2018 the SP, Jabalpur vide his recommendation No. PA/Jabalpur/Reader/IJB/18/18 prayed the District Magistrate, Jabalpur to take action against the petitioner under section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
3. By order dated 29.9.2018 the District Magistrate passed an order of externment thereby externing the petitioner from the limits of District of Jabalpur and other adjoining Districts, namely, Mandla, Dindori, Narsinghpur, Seoni, Katni, Damoh and Umaria for a period of one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 29.8.2018 before the Commissioner, Jabalpur, which was registered in case No.91/Externment/18, which was decided on 20.2.2019 and the order dated 29.9.2019 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur was set aside because the District Magistrate had not even recorded the statement of the department and accordingly, the matter was remanded back to decide afresh after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his defence. On 8.7.2020 an FIR was registered against the petitioner and other two co-accused persons in Police Station Khamariya, Jabalpur for offence under sections 327, 294, 506, 427/34 of IPC in Crime No.184/2020. It is submitted that again on 8.7.2020 itself, the S.P. Jabalpur sent a recommendation for taking action under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, in the light of the order passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 20.2.2019, Annexure P/2 as well as in the light of the fact that Crime No.184/2020 has been registered against the petitioner, and prayed that an order of externment for a period of one year may be passed. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Gwalior on 8.7.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply. The respondents examined their witness and after considering the material available on record, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur passed the order dated 28.7.2020 thereby externing the petitioner from the limits of Jabalpur and adjoining Districts, namely, Mandla, Dindori, Narsinghpur, Seoni, Katni, Damoh and Umaria for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur by order dated 11.11.2020 passed in case No. 12/Externment/2020.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner, Jabalpur, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing an order of externment, the stale cases cannot be taken into consideration. The Sub-Inspector, Police Station Khamariya, District Jabalpur in her evidence has admitted that from the year 2017 till 2020 neither any criminal case except Crime No.184/2020, was registered against the petitioner nor any preventive measure was taken. It is further submitted that it is clear from the order of the District Magistrate that he has relied upon the stale criminal cases which were registered against the petitioner, according to which, two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner in the year 1997, three criminal cases were registered in the year 1998, one case each was registered in the years 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, four criminal cases were registered in the year 2014 and one criminal case each was registered in the year 2016 and 2017. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, Jabalpur has held that although the order of externment was also passed against the petitioner in the y
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fresh externment order to consider an entirely different set of cases that did not constitute a part of the earlier proceedin....
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 essen....
The court highlighted the importance of objective material for recording subjective satisfaction to pass an order of externment, the need for compliance with principles of natural justice, and the ne....
The court upheld the powers of the District Magistrate to extern a person from a particular area/district or districts under section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, and found ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely and effective preventive action under Section 5(a)(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, and the strict conditions th....
The court ruled that externment orders require substantial evidence and must not infringe on fundamental rights without clear justification.
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 M....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely and effective preventive action in externment proceedings, as well as the conditions that must be satisfied for an order o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
