RATICHAND Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Saroj Deharia, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Sole question which crops up for consideration in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of petitioner who suffered an externment order dated 26-6-2009 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chhindwara under section 5 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 affirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 26-8-2009 is as to whether the Additional Magistrate was within its power to have exercised jurisdiction under section 5 of the Adhiniyam 1990, which otherwise is conferred on the District Magistrate.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the core issue briefly, are that the petitioner was proceeded against under the provisions of Adhiniyam 1990 when the Additional District Magistrate, Chhindwara on the basis of the requisition by Superintendent of Police Chhindwara caused a show cause notice to the petitioner under section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam 1990. The said show cause notice was issued by Additional District Magistrate in purported exercise of its power under section 5. The proceedings so initiated resulted in the order dated 26-6-2009, whereby the petitioner was externed from Revenue District Chhindwara and the adjacent districts of Seoni, Narsinghpur, Hoshangabad, Betul for a period of one year. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order preferred an appeal, before the Commissioner under section 9 of Adhiniyam 1990 on the ground that though innocent, the action taken against the petitioner was on the basis of old and stale cases and the cases which were reported to be the cause resulted in acquittal and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.