An externment order cannot be based solely on FIRs without proving a conviction, showing misuse of authority by the District Magistrate.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Anantram Awase being aggrieved of order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Court of Collector and District Magistrate, District Burhanpur, whereby petitioner has been externed from the District of Burhanpur and its neighboring districts for a period of one year. Technically his period of externment will come to an end on 22.01.2025 but the fact of the matter is that petitioner's insistence is that the matter be examined on its own merits and it be seen that the District Magistrate Burhanpur was acting in excess of his authority and was guided by extraneous consideration rather than considerations contained in law.

2. It is pointed out that, in the impugned order itself it is mentioned that there were 11 offences under the Forest Act registered against the petitioner from the year, 2018 to the year, 2023 and thereafter, in the year, 2019 case Crime No. 0358 of 2019 is registered against the petitioner under Section 147 , 148, 149, 353, 332 & 427 of IPC and another case is registered in the year, 2022 as Case Crime No. 717 of 2022 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 427 & 506 of IPC.

3. It is submitted that neither any statements have been recorded how the registration of these cases is danger to the public order and safety. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Driver and he is being prosecuted for reasons other than the reasons contained in law.

4. Shri Yash Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State when asked to demonstrate from the record that how Forest offences will come under the preview of Section 6 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Adhiniyam, 1960") so to invoke its provisions so to pass an order of externment, he fairly admits that those cases will not fall within the ambit of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 but two offences registered in the year, 2019 and 2022 will fall within Chapter XII of IPC and therefore, taking cognizance of those two cases, Collector/District Magistrate was competent to pass appropriate orders for externment.

5. When Shri Yash Soni, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State is asked to show from the record that which of the witnesses were examined to record their statements that presence of the petitioner is a danger to the safety and security or to the public order submits that, the statements could not be recorded because the locality in which petitioner is operating is a Tribal Infested Area and none of the Tribes came forward to depose against the petitioner.

6. When this Court asked Shri Soni, to give the names of the persons who were approached by the District Administration for recording of their statements and then they refused to give their statements, Shri Soni fairly submits that the names of such persons are not available with him.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. Two things are crystal clear. One, Forest Offences have been mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate without having any relevance.

8. Section 6 of the Act of 1990 provides for Removal of persons convicted of certain offences - "If a person has been convicted -

(a) of an offence,- (i) under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (45 of 1860); or (ii) under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); or

(b) twice, of an offence under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956); or

(c) thrice, of an offence within a period of three years under Section 3 or 4 or 4-A of the PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT , 1867 (3 of 1867), in