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 principles of natural justice, may be quashed.

3. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Govt. Advocate, produced the report of District

Magistrate, Seoni and from the perusal of record we find that the entire record has been produced.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners has produced the photocopy of the report of Superintendent of Police as Annexure P-6, in which certain allegations were made against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Seoni while considering the case of petitioner under the Adhiniyam in Paras 7 and 8 of the order considered the report of Superintendent of Police dated 27.3.2008.

5. As the petitioner was not extended any opportunity to explain the allegations in respect of subsequent report dated 27.3.2008 by the Superintendent of Police and the order (Annexure P-l) of the District Magistrate is based on consideration of such report, such order is not sustainable under the law. The District Magistrate before passing such an order ought to have extended an opportunity to the petitioner to explain such report or to submit his explanation in this regard, without which the orders (Annexure P-l and Annexure P-2) cannot be sustained under the law. Principles of natural justice are to be followed in the case where personal liberty of a person is in jeopardy. The material which was used against the petitioner while passing an order of externment ought to have been noticed to the petitioner and in case such material was used against the petitioner without any opportunity to the petitioner to explain it, this by itself is a ground to invalidate the order of externment. Apex Court in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. The State of Gujrat, (1974) 2 SCC 121, considering the question held thus:-

"7. Unfortunately, Counsel overlooked the basic link-up between constitutionality and deviation from the audi alteram partem rule in this jurisdiction and chose to focus on the familiar subject of natural justice as an independent requirement and the illegality following upon its noncompliance. In Indian Constitutional Law, natural justice does not exist as an absolute jural value but is humanistically read by Courts into those great rights enshrined in Para III as the quintessence of reasonableness. We are not unmindful that from Seneca's Medea, the Megna Carta and Lord Coke to the constitutional norms of modem nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is a deeply rooted principle that "the body of no free man shall be taken, nor imprisoned, nor disseised, nor outlawed, nor banished nor destroyed in anyway" without opportunity for defence and one of the first principles of this sense of justice is that you must not permit one side to use means of influencing a decision which means are not known to the other side."

6. In view of aforesaid, we find merit