PAPPU @ PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Pappu @ Pramod Sahu has challenged the order dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commissioner, Indore in case No.53/Appeal/RSA/2013.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the impugned order of externment dated 20.11.2013 was passed by Commissioner, Indore and that initially on 08.06.2011, the District Magistrate Barwani had issued show cause notice dated 08.06.2011 to the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 and the petitioner had filed reply to the same. The petitioner has stated that although there were cases listed against him, he had not been convicted in any of the cases and his track record is clean and the cases recorded were of the year 1992 to 1994; despite filing reply on 09.11.2011 after a period of two years the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 externing the present petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed writ petition No. 13582/2013 against the high handed action before the District Magistrate. The Court had directed that petitioner had alternative remedy on filing the appeal under Section 5 of Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam before the Commissioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a appeal before the commissioner and by the impugned order the commissioner has upheld the order of externment passed by the District Magistrate and hence the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the cases recorded against the petitioner were very old almost 21 years old and basically the petitioner is an agriculturist and there is nobody else to cultivate his land and his family would be driven to penury. Besides he is an income tax payee and one of his son is suffering from eye disorder which requires periodic treatment. Counsel urged that he had filed the record of the Khasra entries which indicated his ownership on the agricultural land his pan card and medical documents correctly as per Annexure P/6. He has also complained to the Human Rights Commission and Superintendent of Police, Barwani regarding the fact that he has been already acquitted from the cases registered against him. In the year 2011 he also produced witnesses from his locality, who have stated before the District Magistrate that only a single case is registered against him and he is a peace loving citizen. Similarly one single criminal case is pending for offence under Sections 406 & 420 of the IPC before the JMFC, Khargone at case No.504/08 and this case also pertains to the year 1992 and in the all other cases he has been acquitted for offence listed against him; despite having such documentary evidence, in his favour, the District Magistrate as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Indore failed to take them into consideration and have passed the externment order without application of mind Counsel prayed that the same be set aside. To bolster his submissions, Counsel relied on Ashok Kumar Patel v/s. State of M.P. and others, 2009 4 MPLJ 434, whereby the Division Bench of this Court held that "unless the conditions mentioned under Section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of externment, will have to be quashed by the Court. The two conditions, for passing an order of externment against a person, to be satisfied are:-