KHURSHEED AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31st March, 1982 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal, under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965, read with section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajyi Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 and the order of the State Government dated 10th May, 1982 dismissing the petitioners appeal against the said order.

(2.) By the impugned order, the District Magistrate directed the petitioner to remove himself from Districts Bhopal, Sehore, Raisen, Vidisha, Dewas, Guna, Rajgarh and Hoshangabad. The petitioner was served with a notice under section 7 of the M.P. Maintenance of Public Order Act on 27th April, 1981. It was alleged in this notice that the movements or acts of the petitioner are causing alarm, danger and harm to persons and property in Bhopal and that people are afraid in coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations made in the notice. The District Magistrate, by his order dated 31st March, 1982, upheld the allegations contained in the notice and passed the impugned order.

(3.) A perusal of the show cause notice as also the externment order passed by the District Magistrate goes to show that reliance was placed on two incidents of 1976, one incident of 1980 and two incidents of 1981. The incidents of 1976, apart from being too remote were minor incidents. Between 1976 and 1980 there was no report whatsoever against the petitioner. The incidents, therefore, could not at all be taken into account by the District Magistrate for supporting the externment order. The incident of 1980 was also a minor incident for which offences under sections 353, 332, 294 and 506 of the Penal Code were registered against the petitioner in connection with a quarrel with Nazul employee Nisar Ahmed. The two incidents of 1981 are of 19th March, 1981 and 20th March, 1981. It is said that on 19th March, 1981 the petitioner beat one Kamlesh Kumar and offences under sections 294 and 506 of the Penal Code were registered against the petitioner. This is also a minor incident. As regards the incident of 20th March, 1981, it is said that the petitioner was attempting to create communal tension on the occasion of Holi. The show cause notice does not, however, disclose the nature of the acts committed by the petitioner in attempting to create communal tension. The material allegations in respect of this incident were thus not stated. Reliance placed on old incidents and incidents of minor significance and nondisclosure of material allegations in respect of one incident made the notice under section 7 invalid. Further, the general observation that witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner made in the show cause notice was also made in a casual manner for the simple reason that the show cause notice referred to certain Government employees who were involved in the incidents and it is difficult to believe that they were unwilling to depose against the petitioner. It appears to us that the District Magistrate passed the order of externment without carefully applying his mind.