TRILOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has essentially called in question the order dated 7.4.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Chhatarpur, removing the petitioner from the area concerned and adjoining districts as well for a period of one year. The subsequent order dated 3.6.2014 sought to be challenged is passed in an appeal by the Commissioner Sagar Division, Sagar. It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the order of removal of the petitioner under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) be not issued. A reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the petitioner. A sort of enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate and thereafter the impugned order dated 7.4.2014 was passed. Rejecting the explanation extended by the petitioner and recording the fact that looking to various criminal cases registered against the petitioner since the witnesses were not coming forward to adduce evidence against the petitioner in the said criminal cases on account of threat of dire consequence, it was held that the petitioner was not to be allowed to remain in the area and was thus removed from the area. This power was exercised under Sections 5 & 6 of the Act. An appeal was preferred against the said order which too has been dismissed by the second impugned order dated 3.6.2014. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) IN response to the writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents categorically contending that cases were registered against the petitioner and a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was continuing in such illegal activities and thus, on account of his involvement in those activities, residents of the area were living in threats. Nobody was coming forward to adduce evidence against the petitioner in criminal cases. It is contended that after enquiry for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned was rightly passed. The appeal of the petitioner was rightly considered and since it was found that the order of externment has been issued after due consideration of the pleas raised by the petitioner and the evidence available on record, the same was rightly dismissed. In view of this, it is contended that the order of externment is not liable to be interfered with in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THOUGH many things have been stated, but for the purposes of ascertaining whether the proper action was taken by the respondents or not, the original record was called from the office of the District Magistrate, which is produced in sealed cover by the learned Govt. Advocate.