BRIJLAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DAMOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the District Magistrate, Damoh, on 2nd November 1966 under section 3 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioners and two other persons "to disperse themselves outside the revenue district of Damoh or any part thereof and contiguous revenue districts namely Sagar, Panna, Chhatarpur, Jabalpur and Narsimhapur of Madhya Pradesh or any part thereof" within a period of seven days from the date of the order for a period of one year and not to enter the aforesaid district or part thereof and the said contiguous districts or part thereof and not to return to the place from which they have been directed to remove themselves. This order of the District Magistrate was upheld by the State Government on 15th April 1967 in an appeal preferred by the "externees". The petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari be issued also for quashing the order of the State Government passed in appeal.

(2.) SECTION 3 of the Act provides:

(3.) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the order passed by the District Magistrate was mala fide as the applicants were never the members of any gang or body of persons, the movement or encampment of which in the Damoh district was causing or was calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion about any unlawful design; that they were also neither the leaders nor the chiefmen of any such gang or body. It was said that under section 3 (b) the District Magistrate had no power to direct any individual person to remove himself outside any district or any contiguous districts; that he could only direct the members of a gang or body of the type described in section 3 "to disperse and each of them to remove himself outside any district or any part thereof and from any contiguous district or districts or any part thereof"; and that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Damoh, was utterly contrary to the terms of section 3 (b) and, therefore, illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that the grounds on which the impugued order was passed against the petitioners were foreign or extraneous to section 3. He also made the grievance that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity of tendring their explanation against the allegations made in regard to them; that the District Magistrate did not examine the persons whom they desired to examine on their behalf; and that the persons who gave evidence in support of the allegations made against them were examined in the absence of the petitioners.