GOPAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dt. 7.11.2013 passed by the District Magistrate Mandsaur, exercising the powers conferred under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. He is also aggrieved by order dt. 3.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner Ujjain Division Ujjain by which the petitioners appeal preferred under Section 9 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that a show -cause notice was issued by the learned District Magistrate on 3.11.2012 for initiating proceedings under the Act of 1990 and the petitioner did submit a reply in the matter. The learned District Magistrate has concluded the proceedings by an order dt. 3.1.2013 meaning thereby no order of externment was passed. The learned District Magistrate has again issued a notice dt. 3.10.2013 and all the offences enumerated in the first notice dt. 3.11.2012 were also included in the second show -cause notice. There were three additional offences mentioned in the second show -cause notice. The petitioner did submit a reply and informed the Authorities that he has been acquitted in the case which was under the Arms Act and the second case was in respect of violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and the third case relates to proceedings under Section 101 and Section 44 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner did submit a reply informing the past history of the proceedings which took place under the Act of 1990. However, the learned District Magistrate has passed an order of externment dt. 7.11.2013. The order passed by the learned District Magistrate in paragraph 6 reads as under: -

(3.) A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have made an attempt to justify the order passed by the learned District Magistrate. It has been stated that learned District Magistrate is empowered to pass an appropriate order based upon a report received by the Superintendent of Police and keeping in view the offences registered against the petitioner, the order has rightly been passed. It has also been stated that opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and the question of interference by this Court does not arise.