SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(MP) 426

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA, K.K.LAHOTI
Manish – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Mukesh Pandey for petitioners; Vinod Mehta, Govt. Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

1. This petition is directed against order dated 15.4.2008 by District Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No. 17/2003 by which the petitioner No.1 was externed under Sections 5,6 and 12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafterreferred to as 'Adhiniyam' for short).

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Collector, Seoni vide order dated 26.2.2008 called a report in respect of activities of petitioner No.1 from Superintendent of Police, Seoni. The aforesaid information was furnished to the District Magistrate, Seoni by the Superintendent of Police on 27.3.2008 and the Collector, Seoni while passing order (Annexure P-l) took into consideration the aforesaid report in Paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. It was submitted. that without extending an opportunity to explain the aforesaid circumstances appearing in the report, the order was passed by which the petitioner No.1 was externed vide order Annexure P-l for a period of one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, but vide order Annexure P-2 it was dismissed. It was submitted that the order (Annexure P-l) which has been passed without following the pr






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top