ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ujjain externing him for a period of one year with effect from the date of order from the revenue limits of Districts Ujjain and all contiguous Districts in exercise of powers under section 5(a) (b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred as the 'Adhiniyam'). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7.7.2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, whereby his appeal preferred against the order dated 21.3.2025 under section 9 of the Adhiniyam has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case show that on the basis of report of Superintendent of Police, District Ujjain dated 22.9.2023, a show cause notice for externment was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate under section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner filed his reply to the said notice after which the District Magistrate passed his order on 21.3.2025 which has been affirmed by the Commissioner by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of externment has been passed only on the basis of number of cases registered against the petitioner. No satisfaction has been recorded of existence of grounds of externment on the basis of the available material. The externment order is contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. There is no objective consideration by the competent authority. The order is contrary to the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of M.P., 2009 (4) MPLJ 434 and various other decisions on the same point. The authorities have failed to record satisfaction in the impugned orders regarding requirement of section 5 of the Adhiniyam.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has supported the externment order of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has 11 criminal cases registered against him. He is involved in criminal activities since the year 2007. Recently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Mahakal, District Ujjain and as many as on three occasions prohibitory proceedings have been taken against him under section 110 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the District Magistrate after objective consideration of the material on record had passed the externment order which has rightly been affirmed in appeal. There is no illegality in the same warranting interference in this petition.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. It would firstly be apt to refer to the provisions of the Adhiniyam particularly Section 5 under which the order of externment has been passed against the petitioner. The same is as under:

"5. Removal of persons about to commit offence.- whenever it appears to the District Magistrate:-

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or

(b) that there are reasonably grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, 4 XVI, or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abetment of any such offence, and when 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; or(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant; the District Magistrate, may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant

(a) so as to