SADDAM ALI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dtd. 20/9/2021 (AnnexureP/8), passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol, whereby, the order dtd. 18/1/2021 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the District Magistrate, Shahdol, has been affirmed and appeal under Sec. 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1990" for short) preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that the order of externment passed in exercise of powers under Ss. 5, 6 and 7 of the Act of 1990 is erroneous for the reason that the same is based on a report of Superintendent of Police, Shahdol dtd. 17/9/2018.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed on 18/1/2021 and the District Magistrate has taken the action of externment on the basis of report dtd. 17/9/2018 which itself is sufficient to establish that the mandate of Act of 1990 is violated and the District Magistrate, Shahdol has not applied his mind and has acted arbitrarily. He places reliance on the decision of this Court Ashok Kumar Patel V. State of M.P., 2009 (4) MPLJ 434. Sanju @ Sanjay Ben V. State of M.P. And Ors., 2005 (4) MPHT 102. Kala V. State of M.P., 2004 (4) MPLJ 234. Raghuwanshi V. State of M.P., 2014 (4) MPLJ 654. Pappu V. State of M.P., (2007) 3 MPLJ 115. Dharmendra Singh V. State of M.P., (2007) 2 MPLJ 108. Meena Sonkar V. State of M.P., (2017) 2 MPLJ 565 and Chandra Prakash @ Tinku Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.11825/2021, order dtd. 18/11/2021 and submits that only on the aforesaid grounds, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order of externment deserves to be set aside.

(3.) This Court directed the State counsel to produce the record of the externment proceedings. A certified copy of the original record is perused. The record of the District Magistrate, Shahdol clearly shows that report dtd. 17/9/2018 contained therein that on account of registration of various cases since 2014 onwards against the petitioner, an action for his externment under the provisions of the Act of 1990 was proposed. It is seen that the District Magistrate in paragraph No.5 has recorded a finding that there were cases against the petitioner since 2014 onwards and the last case which was registered against him was in the year 2019. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be externed from District Shahdol and its adjoining State i.e. Sidhi,Satna,Umaria and Anuppur for a period of one year.