STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by the appellants/State against the order dtd. 24/11/2021 passed in W.P.No. 21686/2021 whereby the writ Court has set aside the order of externment dtd. 17/9/2021 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Indore in the exercise of power under Sec. 5(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam).

(2.) On 17/5/2021, the counsel engaged by the respondent appeared along with Vakalatnama. Learned counsel moved an application seeking condonation of non-appearance of the respondent and on which a next date was fixed on 20/5/2021. On the said date, the presiding officer was on leave and the matter was taken up on 21/5/2021. On the said date also, the counsel appeared without the respondent and sought time to file a reply. The time was given, and the matter was fixed on 1/6/2021. On the said date also, the respondent did not appear and on his behalf, his counsel appeared along with the reply and the matter was fixed for arguments on 14/6/2021. On 14/6/2021 also, only an advocate appeared, the respondent did not appear, learned DM heard the final arguments, the learned counsel of the respondent submitted Written arguments and the case was closed for order.

(3.) Thereafter, the final order was passed on 17/9/2021 under Sec. 5(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 externing the respondent for a period of 6 months. Instead of challenging the aforesaid order by way of an appeal under Sec. 9 of the Adhiniyam of 1990, the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution mainly on the ground that he was not given any effective opportunity of hearing by the District Magistrate before passing the final order. It is further submitted that the respondent could not produce the certified copies of the criminal cases wherein he had been acquitted by the competent courts, therefore, the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside by the High Court without relegating him to the appellate forum. The appellant/State Government filed the reply justifying the impugned action that ample opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent but he did not file any document hence the learned authority had no option but to pass the final order. It is further submitted that the respondent is having statutory remedy of appeal under Sec. 9 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 and all the grounds are liable to be considered by the appellate authority.