YUNUS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of an appellate order, dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by State in exercise of its appellate powers conferred under section 9 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam (for short called Adhiniyam) which in turn affirms the order, dated 5.8.2003 (Annexure P-3), passed by District Magistrate, Dewas in Case No. 6 of 2002 (Criminal). Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They need to be taken note of in brief infra.

(2.) ON 17.7.2003, the District Magistrate, Dewas issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-1) under section 6 of the Adhiniyam calling upon the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from the district of Dewas. In the show cause, it was alleged that on 28.10.2002, the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 4 of Gambling Act, 1867, then again on 25.11.2002 petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 4-A of the Gambling Act and lastly again on 29.4.2003 the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 4-A of the Act. It was alleged that since in last two years, i.e. between 28.10.2002 to 29.4.2003, the petitioner has not only found indulging in gambling activities but suffered three successive conviction and hence, he has rendered himself liable to be externed out of the concerned district as provided in section 6(c) of the Act. In other words, the only ground on which the petitioner was asked to suffer an externment was that he has suffered conviction under the Gambling Act thrice in three years as contemplated under section 6(c) of the Adhiniyam. It is this ground which found favour to D.M. as also by the appellate Court, the petitioner was externed from Dewas district. It is against these orders; the petitioner has come up in writ and questioned its legality. The State has been noticed. Reply is taken on record.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case. I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned orders. Section 6(c) of the Adhiniyam which alone is relevant for the disposal of this writ and made basis in the impugned show cause, reads as under : "S. 6. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences - If a person has been convicted - (a) of an offence, -