LAXMI PRASAD BAJPAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of externment passed against the petitioner on July 19, 1971 by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, under the Madhya pradesh Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act ). By that order the District Magistrate directed the petitioner to remove himself outside the revenue district of Bilaspur and the contiguous districts of Raigarh, sarguja, Shahdol, Mandla, Raipur and Durg or any part thereof within a period of three days from the date of receipt of that order and not to enter or return to the aforesaid districts or any part thereof for a period of one year from the date of that order.

(2.) ON information being received from the Superintendent of Police, bilaspur, and on the material placed before him the District Magistrate informed the petitioner in writing of the allegations against him and gave him an opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. He filed a written statement denying most of the allegations and examined ten witnesses in his defence. On a consideration of the material and appraisal of the evidence produced before him, the District Magistrate was satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were calculated to cause alarm and danger to person and property. He further found that the petitioner was responsible for indulging in activities details of which have been given in the preliminary order showing that the petitioner was engaged or was about to be engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapters 16 and 17 of the Penal Code and that he had created such a terror that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him. The District Magistrate confirmed his preliminary order in which, on a consideration of the particulars enumerated in that order and the material placed before him, it appeared to him that the petitioner, having formed a gang, was carrying on terrorising activities and committing offences against body and property in the district of Bilaspur, particularly in the areas within the City Kotwali and Civil Lines Police Station of bilaspur; and further that the petitioner and his companions were committing theft, robbery, dacoity, causing hurt, murder, affray, depriving people of their money and possession of land, assaulting Government servants; and that prosecutions were initiated against him but because of the terror created by him, no independent witness could muster courage to give evidence against him and his companions ; further that having created terror in the general public, he is in the habit of threatening people with assault so that no one, even when injured, approaches the police nor dare institute a case in the Court and that witnesses turn hostile because of fear and threats: and that the petitioner having been convicted under Chapters 16 and 17 of the Penal Code, has become an anti-social element, causing alarm to the general public and engaging himself in commission of crimes and he commits breach of peace by taking law in his own hands. His own words may be reproduced here :-<IMG>np_689_mplj_1972.jpg</IMG>

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the final order dated July 19. 1971, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under section 8 of the Act. Although this appeal was filed on July 23, 1971, no date of hearing was fixed by the government. In this petition which was filed on October 25, 197), the petitioner raised that point. However, during the pendency of the petition a date in December 1971 was fixed for hearing of the appeal, but the petitioner refused to avail himself of that opportunity. He informed the appellate authority that since this petition was pending in this Court he would not appear before the appellate authority. Learned Government Advocate informed us that the appeal has not been dismissed and is still pending and it is open to the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority which will hear him and decide the appeal. But the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically stated that he did not hope to get any relief from the appellate authority so that the petitioner had decided not to appear before it.