AMAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Aman Rathore has challenged the order dated 26.3.14 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhar, by which the petitioner has been externed from the District of Dhar, Indore, Ujjain, Ratlam, Jhabua, Barwani, Khargone and Alirajpur for a period of six months and also the appellate order dated 31.5.14 passed by the court of Commissioner in Case No. 10/Appeal/Su.Adhi./2014. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the SP, Dhar had proceeded against the petitioner under provisions of 5A of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990, stating that the involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities was a danger to the life of the public in district Dhar and surrounding areas and, therefore, the externment was required to be passed against the petitioner. The District Magistrate Dhar had issued a show cause notice No. 62, dated 22.01.13 to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard, however, the order of externment was passed on 26.3.14 in the case No. 04/13 (Annexure P/1). Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed the appeal under Section 9 of the MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 before the Court of the Commissioner who upheld the findings of the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was registered as Case No. 10/Appeal/Su. Adhi./2014 and hence the present petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that before passing the externment order, District Magistrate has to be satisfied on the basis of the material placed before him that the accused were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, in general, however there is no such finding in the impugned order and the statement of the Police was not supplied to the petitioner and hence he was not able to take up an adequate defence. Counsel submitted that the material on record did not satisfy the ingredients as contemplated under Sections 5 -A & 5 -B of the Suraksha Adhiniyam. Moreover out of 16 offences registered against him, the accused had been acquitted in most of them. Moreover even if the nature of the offence registered are considered Counsel submitted that all of them are petty offences under Sections 323, 294 & 506 of the IPC. He was involved in any serious offences. Even if the list filed along with the reply filed by the State is considered, Counsel submitted that there was no offence registered against the petitioner after the year 2011, whereas the externment order has been passed in the year 2013. Counsel prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

(3.) SIMILARLY placing reliance on Pappu @ Dinesh Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in : 2007 MP CANDID 110 to state that "the Commissioner has nowhere found that the movements or acts of the petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property. He has, merely found that the petitioner was convicted with fine in all seven cases registered under Public Gambling Act. He has further found that one more prosecution is pending against the petitioner which confirms the criminal background of the petitioner. No doubt that the past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making an order of externment. However, the criminal background of a person by itself is not sufficient to empower the authorities to pass order of externment, unless it is found that the criminal background of the proposed externee is causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property."