RAMGOPAL RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Umesh Gajankush learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In brief, the petitioner who is the resident of Pithampur District Dhar was served with the notice dated 7-11-2013 initiating the proceedings for externment under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short the Act). The petitioner had filed reply dated 13-11-2013. Thereafter the impugned order of externment dated 2-4-2014 under section 5(a)(b) and 6(c) of the Act was passed by the District Magistrate which has been confirmed in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner challenging the impugned order submits that petitioner is a representative of workers union and cases were registered against the petitioner at the behest of management. He has submitted that out of seven cases on which reliance has been placed, compromise was arrived at in five cases but that aspect of the matter has not been considered. He has further submitted that the District Magistrate has failed to consider that requirements of section 5(b) of the Act are not satisfied and that in the report of Superintendent of Police even section 6(c) of the Act was not mentioned. He has also submitted that the order of externment has been based upon the old and stale cases.