SATISH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the externment order dated 12-4-1990 (Annexure A) passed by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Balaghat and order dated 27- 10- 1990 (Annexure B) dismissing his appeal by respondent No.1 State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioner is a member of Kunbi community and a resident of Lanjhi, police station and tehsil Lanjhi, district Balaghat. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed. u/S.12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), remove himself outside district Balaghat and contiguous districts Seoni, Mandla and Rajnandgaun for a period of one year, and further informing him that in the event of contravention of the direction, the petitioner is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and fine.

(3.) The petitioner was served with a notice dated 20-12-1989 (Annexure C) u/S. 15(1) of the Act, detailing the general nature of material allegations against him and requiring him to tender explanation regarding them. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 16-1-1990 denying all the allegations and submitted that he is a social and political worker, engaged in upliftment of the society. His activities are opposed by some persons. Such persons have lodged maliciously false reports. He also protested against the corruption prevailing in the administration. On account of these, the police and the government servants harboured ill will and at the instance of such persons the police registered offences on false and baseless reports and filed charge-sheets in the courts. He submitted a list of 22 witnesses whom he desired to examine in his defence. On 13-3-1990, he examined 2 witnesses and prayed for opportunity to produce further witnesses but the same was turned down. The District Magistrate, thereafter, passed the impugned order. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the State Government, vide Annexure-B. The petitioner submits that the impugned orders are violative of S. 15, inasmuch as he was denied reasonable opportunity to show cause the allegations relied against him. He also submitted that the allegations are of minor and trivial character and should not have been made the basis to pass externment order against him.