Timely action is essential in externment proceedings to maintain public order; excessive delay can result in the quashing of such orders.

O R D E R

(Passed on this the 06th day of March, 2018)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of externment dated 23.5.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate Raisen as also the order passed in appeal dated 21.8.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that a complaint/Ishtagasa was made by the respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Police, Raisen on 3.8.2013 to the District Magistrate, the respondent No.3 under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam of 1990’) against the petitioner – Parvez Khan aged about 25 years for his externment from the local limits of District Raisen and its adjoining districts on the ground of his criminal activities and also on the ground that on account of the petitioner’s terror the people are not coming forward to lodge any complaint against him and no sooner the petitioner gets the bail in any criminal case, he again indulges himself in criminal activities. In the aforesaid Ishtagasa it was alleged that the petitioner has been involved in criminal cases under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 324, 336, 383, 294, 452, 506, 34, 427, 451 and 452 of IPC and apart from that he was also involved in cases relating to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as also under Sections 41 (2), 110, 151, 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. and every now and then the petitioner is found to be involved in criminal activities of threatening and assault. In the proceedings of externment, as many as 7 witnesses were examined by the District Magistrate to substantiate the case of externment against the petitioner. A show cause notice in this behalf was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to mark his presence on 13.2.2017 and on which date he sought time to file reply and despite taking three adjournments he did not file any reply and lastly on 17.4.2017 also the petitioner failed to mark his presence and his counsel also pleaded no instructions, hence ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. Hence, the District Magistrate, vide the impugned order dated

23.5.2017, by invoking the provisions of Section 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam ordered that the petitioner be externed from the local limits of Raisen and the other adjoining districts for a period of one year.

3. In the appeal against the aforesaid order preferred by the petitioner, the Commissioner Bhopal Division has also confirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate, Raisen. It is contended in the appeal that the Ishtagasa/complaint submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Raisen for the petitioner’s externment in the year 2013 was not processed expeditiously and after a period of three years ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 3.1.2016 the statement of the then Town Inspector was recorded and the notice to the petitioner was issued only on 13.2.2017. It is further contended that before the District Magistrate, the counsel appearing for the petitioner did not appear and no intimation regarding this was also given to the petitioner which has led to passing of the ex-parte order against him.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to pass the order of externment after a period of three years on the basis of the complaint/Ishtagasa made by the Superintendent