PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Arts. 246/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows: On 14-6-1985, the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, issued a notice to one Ramesh Dube to show cause why action be not taken against him under the provisions of the M P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Loki Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by removing him, for a period of one year, from the district of Indore and contiguous districts of Dewas Dhar, Khaegone and Ujjain. In that notice, the proposed externee was informed of the general nature of the material allegations against him. It was stated that the movements and acts of Ramesh causing alarms, danger and harm to persons and properties and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that Ramesh was engaged in the commission of offences specified in section 12(b) of the Act involving force or violence from the year 1969 till 1984 and that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against Ramesh by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons and properties, the reply to the show cause notice was submitted by Ramesh Dube and he also examined witnesses in his defense. Thereafter on 4-10-1985, an order of externment was passed against Ramesh but on appeal to the State Government, the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate for passing an order afresh after appreciating the material on record. Where after respondent No.2 called upon Ramesh to state whether he wanted to adduce any further explanation and information was also sought from the police about the activities of Ramesh The Additional District Magistrate, after appreciating the entire material on record, passed an order of externment on 29-12-1986 under the provisions obsession 12(a) and (b) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner, claiming to be the friend of Ramesh, has filed this petition.

(3.) The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in passing the order of externment, respondent No.2 took into consideration offences alleged to have been committed by Ramesh from the year 1969. It was contended that on account of consideration of those old incidents, the order of externment was vitiated. The contention cannot be up held. It is true that an order of externment under the Act is passed not for the purpose of punishing a person for his past acts but with a view to prevent activity of an Individual for maintenance of public order. But as held by this Court in Laxmi Prasad Bajpai v. District Magistrate, Bilaspur anti another1, instances of past activities are certainly relevant for consideration for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the person concerned is likely to indulge in objectionable activities specified in section 12(a) and (b) of the Act.