VIJAY SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Sagar removing the petitioner within the area in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') as also the order dated 08.01.2014 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not extended to him inasmuch as after issuing him a show cause notice, relevant orders passed by the Trial Court in cases launched against the petitioner, though produced before the Collector, were not looked into, nor taken into consideration and holding that the cases were going on against the petitioner for a long time, right from the year 1996 up to the year 2011, the order impugned was passed. It is also contended that there was no subjective satisfaction of the authority from the facts as reported to it regarding the exercise of power under Section 5(b) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law.

(3.) THIS Court has directed for production of the original record in which the case of the petitioner was considered. The said record is produced by the Govt. Advocate. On perusal it is found that a report was made against the petitioner on 18.05.2011 by the Superintendent of Police after obtaining complaints from the Station House Officer of the local Police Station where the petitioner ordinarily resides. It was stated that in terms of the record maintained in the Police Station, there were 16 cases registered against the petitioner. However, the result of the said criminal cases were not indicated. Certain independent witnesses were also referred to and the statements of those witnesses were recorded. The District Magistrate thereafter issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.07.2011 indicating the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner filed an application seeking copies of certain documents and thereafter submitted his detailed reply. It was categorically contended by the petitioner that in none of the cases registered against him, he was found guilty of any such offences. It was the stand of the petitioner that most of the offences were registered only because complaints were made by those, who were keeping grudge against the petitioner as he is involved in the business of public transportation. It was the defence of the petitioner that he was made to oblige the police personnels and since the complaint was made against those persons by the petitioner and in enquiry one of the Constable was found guilty, such an action was initiated against the petitioner to grind the axe by the Police Officers. The petitioner annexed as many as 12 orders passed in the cases registered against him and stated that he would like to cross -examine the independent witnesses.