RAMESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment of the petitioner passed by the District Magistrate of District Dhar passed on 16-4-1984 Annexure-H to the petition and the appellate order passed by the State Government Home Department on 4-8-1984 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on merits.

(2.) The action under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') was taken on the application by the Superintendent of Police, District Dhar against the petitioner and three others, viz., Vijay Kumar, Badri and Chhotu on the allegation that having regard to the difficulties created in maintenance of peace and security in public as a result of anti-social activities of the petitioner, the action of externment of the petitioner and other three members from district Dhar and nearby District was called for. Along with the application of the Superintendent of Police, the list of witnesses and the list of documents were also submitted. The petitioner and the other three members, named above, were given notices under S. 15 of the Adhiniyam on 3rd July, 1982 to show cause as to why the action be not taken against them under the said Adhiniyam. Chhotu submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. It was pointed out that the notice did not mention the relevant provisions. Hence again show-cause notices, under S. 15 of the Adhiniyam, were given to the petitioner and others afresh. In the show-cause notice dt. 23-2-1983 issued to the petitioner, he was informed of the general nature of the material allegations against him and was given an opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. On the basis of the allegations contained in the notice, the petitioner was required to show-cause as to why action under S. 11, 12, or 13 of the Adhiniyam be not taken against him for his removal from the district of Dhar and neighbouring districts for a period of one year under S. 14 of the Adhiniyam. The general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner as required to be informed in writing by the District Magistrate under S. 15(1) of the Adhiniyam in the show-cause notice included the allegations that the petitioner was a leader of a 'gang' in Dhar town and as a member of the 'gang' had been terrorising the general public of Dhar town by his criminal activities for a long time, that being a dangerous person, drunk and armed with dangerous weapons he was off and on, assaulting, threatening causing harm and communal riots and even doing 'Mar-peet' with police-man on duty, that as a member of the 'gang' he did 'Mar-peet' and caused injuries to the people after forcing entry in their houses. It was also stated in the show-cause notice that on account of criminal activities of the petitioner, the general public of Dhar town was so much terrorized, that they were afraid of lodging report with police and did not take courage to give evidence against him in Court and complainants out of fear entered into compromise in Court. It was stated that criminal cases had been instituted against the petitioner and several cases were pending, in the Court still. It was further stated that having regard to available facts and existing circumstances, the District Magistrate was satisfied that a feeling of alarm and danger had prevailed in the general public of Dhar town because of the movements and acts of the petitioner and breach of law and order was apprehended at any time.

(3.) The petitioner and other members submitted replies to the respective show-cause notices denying the allegations and seeking opportunity to adduce evidence. The petitioner and others were allowed the opportunity to examine witnesses. In support of the allegations, the police also produced documentary proof and examined witnesses. It may be mentioned that no grievance has been made by the petitioner about the adequacy of opportunity being afforded to him to show cause against the proposed action of externment. The petitioner, however, remained absent during the proceedings since he had absconded and had allegedly disappeared with a girl according to the police.