SUNIL Vs. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 23.2.2017 Annexure P/1 whereby an externment order was passed by District Magistrate, Sagar against the petitioner. The appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Sagar affirmed the aforesaid order by impugned order dated 21.3.2017.

(2.) Shri D.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of the externment proceedings were served on the petitioner on 22.2.2017. The petitioner marked his presence before respondent No.3 through his counsel and prayed for time to file reply. However, without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the externment order was passed on 23.2.2017. The petitioner assailed this order unsuccessfully before the appellate authority. Shri Jain submits that earlier petitioner was subjected to an externment order on 12.1.2015. This order was set aside by this court in WP No.10546/2015 on 23.9.2015 Annexure P/3. After the order of this court in the earlier round of litigation, no further criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no justification in passing externment order against the petitioner.

(3.) Shri D.K. Jain further submits that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by the respondents authorities. The orders impugned are example of non-application of mind. The alleged offences were committed by the petitioner between 1998 to 2013. In most of the cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted. Thus, there is no justification in passing the impugned order. In addition, it is submitted that during the pendency of WP No.10546/2015, there was no interim order against the earlier externment order dated 12.1.2015. In absence of interim order, the petitioner remained out of district during said period, hence, question of committing offence during that period in those districts does not arise.