KRISHNA DATT UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 08.09.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, in Criminal case No.10/2003, by which the learned District Magistrate has directed the petitioner to leave several districts viz., Bastar, Dantewada, Ranker, Chandrapur (Maharashtra) and Koraput (Orissa).

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, on 30th June, 2003, under the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, for externment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner always remains in company of unsocial elements and involved himself in act of rioting, assaulting, criminal intimidation, political and communal activities and disturbance of peace and tranquility of the area and such activities of the petitioner has become danger for the maintenance of public order and on account of these activities the civilians are scared of the petitioner and fear to make report. In this complaint, the list of cases which were registered and challaned against the petitioner are mentioned in para 5.3 of the writ petition. On receiving this compaint the District Magistrate after preliminiary enquiry and satisfying himself with the cotents of the complaint issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.07.2003 under the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, in Criminal Case No.10/2003. In response to that, the petitioner filed reply and he was asked for production of evidence, but further, in spite of giving him opportunity, the petitioner could not produce evidence. The prosecution in support of the complaint examined, Arvind Dwivedi, Thana Incharge, Kashkal.

(3.) THE learned District Magistrate after considering the reply of the petitioner and prosecution evidence and placing reliance on the evidence of Arvind Dwivedi and the past conduct of the petitioner and criminal cases filed against him, reached the conclusion that the alleged allegations against the petitioner are true and he is dangerous for the maintenance of public order in the district. Therefore, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2003 under sections 5 (a) and 5 (b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990. The petitioner has primarily challenged this order on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, no reasonable opportunity was given to him for adducing the evidence and the ground taken by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order being old and stale, and principles of natural justice have not been followed. Therefore, he requested for quashing of the impugned order.