PREETAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that by the order dated 4-8-2011, the respondent No. 2, Collector, has directed the petitioner to leave the area of Districts Raisen, Vidisha, Sagar, Bhopal, Hoshangabad, Sehore and Narsinghpur within 48 hours from the date of receipt of order and not to enter in the said area for a period of one year without the permission of the competent authority. It is further directed by this order that in case of breach of the order aforesaid, action be taken against the petitioner under section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It is contended that in response to the show cause notice issued, petitioner has filed his detailed reply pointing out the fact that the petitioner was not involved in any such activities on account of which such order of externment can be issued against him. No conduct of the petitioner was thereafter 2007 to indicate that the petitioner was involved in any such illegal activities, which has caused fear in the mind of people living in the society or that the peace in the area was likely to be disturbed. However, without considering such pleas raised by the petitioner, relying on the statement of certain persons recorded behind the back of the petitioner, the order impugned was passed. THE petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions of section 9 of the Act aforesaid but without considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the same was dismissed by order dated 5-10-2011, therefore, the petitioner was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is, thus, contended that order passed against the petitioner is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) That no return has been filed by the respondent State but to assist the Court, record in original was called. After perusal of record, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that there were reports against the petitioner and after considering the reports, action was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2008. Full opportunity of defence was granted to the petitioner. The reports submitted against the petitioner indicated that till the year 2007, there were cases registered against him involving the petitioner in the offences of Public Gambling Act. The petitioner is keeping a shop and while doing the business, the petitioner was also involved in such gambling continuously and the offences were registered against him, of which the trial was conducted. It was further stated that on such action, the petitioner was sentenced with the fine under the aforesaid Gambling Act but he has not improved his behaviour. Thus, because of such reasons, on making a proposal against the petitioner by the police authorities, the statement of witnesses were recorded and after recording the statement, authorities came to the conclusion that because of the illegal activities of the petitioner, the atmosphere in the society was being polluted, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his reply was obtained which was not found satisfactory. In view of this, it is contended that if the order was passed against the petitioner, nothing wrong was committed by the competent authority. It is further contended that the appeal of the petitioner was considered and after examining the record, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that no wrong was committed by the authorities while passing order against the petitioner and, therefore, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) The fact which was proved was only this much that certain challans were filed against the petitioner for offence under section 4-A of the Gambling Act and fine was imposed by the Court. However, even on the date of statement, it was nowhere said in the statement categorically by these persons that the petitioner was still involved in the commission of offence under section 4-A of the Gambling Act or that there were certain other cases registered against him continuously. THE first statement of witness Shriniwas Sharma was recorded on 18-5-2009, the other statement of witness H. L. Tiwari was recorded on 4-9-2010 but the said person was not the Police Station Incharge at the relevant time and he was not in a position to state whether the petitioner was still involved in commission of such offence of Gambling Act. THE only person Surendra Kumar Tiwari, who could state about such fact, was examined on 24-2-2011 but even he could not state that there were any offences committed by the petitioner after 2007 and cases were registered against the petitioner under the Gambling Act after the said year so as to indicate that still the petitioner was continuously involved in such offence. No other witnesses were examined nor any independent evidence was recorded in that respect. THErefore, it could not be said that there was sufficient material to hold that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner is continuously involved in commission of offence similar to that for which he was convicted. How could it be inferred when neither there was any evidence nor a proof nor even registration of a single crime against the petitioner after the date of show cause notice issued way back in the year 2008. Thus, the finding reached by the respondent No. 2 with respect to his satisfaction could not be said to be justified.