RAM NARESH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under article 226/27 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.1996 (Annexure A. 11) passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, under section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short the Adhiniyam) directing the petitioner to remove himself from the areas of district Raipur and its contiguous district Durg, Rajnandgaon, Billaspur and Raigarh within a period of 7 days from 16.7.1996 and not to enter or return to said districts for a period of one year, that is upto 16.7.1997, and the order dated 8.8.1996 (Annexure R.7) passed in appeal preferred under section 9 of the Adhiniyam, by the State Government, communicated vide order dated 12 August, 1996 (Annexure A.12).

(2.) THE petitioner is a Journalist and local agent of "Amrit Sandesh" a daily newspaper. The petitioner avers that he made certain complaints against misdeeds of forest and other authorities, therefore, he was being harassed by falsely implicating him in criminal offences in which he was acquitted. Preventive actions under section 107/16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken against the petitioner were set aside by the Revisional Court. The respondents no. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since 1982 like using abusive and filthy language, terrorizing person, by his acts, peace and tranquility is endangered as he uses force and violence. He has reason to believe that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence publicly as they apprehend on their part as regards their safety or their person or property. Therefore, show cause why he should not be removed from Raipur district for a period of one year. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 12.4.1996 (Annexure A.10) denying the allegations and also produced the documents and examined the witnesses in defence. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 9th July 1996 (Annexure A.11) on his satisfaction on the statement of witnesses who were examined in camera at the back of the petitioner, whose names were not disclosed either in the show cause notice or during the course of the enquiry or in the final order, ordered the removal of the petitioner not only from the district Raipur but also from other contiguous districts.

(3.) SHRI Awadha Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a peace living person. He being the journalist, brings the misdeeds of officials of various departments in the public and also raises a voice against their illegal and unauthorised acts, therefore, the petitioner is being harassed and is being involved in criminal cases. The prosecution having failed in the said cases, drastic action of removal from district Raipur and four other districts have been taken, which is malafide. Admittedly Rajnandgaon is not a contiguous district. Show cause notice issued under section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam only related to the removal of the petitioner from Raipur district but in the final order the petitioner has been ordered to remove himself not only from district Raipur but also from contiguous districts for a period of one year. There was no material before the District Magistrate, even to form a subjective opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward and to give evidence in public. Neither the names of such witnesses were disclosed nor any witness was examined before the petitioner during the enquiry. The Respondent No. 2 had examined the witnesses at the back of the petitioner before issuance of show cause notice; copies on their statements were neither supplied to the petitioner nor he was afforded an opportunity to cross -examine them. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the prosecution failed due to non -production of witnesses who did not come forward in the trials to give evidence.