AARIF Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18-08-2017 passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The order has been passed in respect of Externment. Mr Gandhi learned counsel for the applicant at the outset has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 18-08-2017 and his contention is that as per the last two paragraphs, the District Magistrate has proceeded ex-parte against the present petitioner only because he has rejected the reply filed by the petitioner in the matter.

(2.) This court has carefully gone through the impugned order. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner has submitted a reply and as the District Magistrate was not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, he decided to proceed ex-parte. The record of the case was requisitioned by this court and and the record is very much available. It is also true that the District Magistrate was not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, but the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 nowhere provides that in case District Magistrate is not satisfied with the reply he has a right to proceed ex-parte against an individual. The District Magistrate was certainly having a right to pass an appropriate order on merits. However, in the instant case the District Magistrate has proceeded ex-parte, this court is of the considered opinion that the Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play have been violated.

(3.) In the case of Ravindra Singh Sikarwar v. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (1) MPHT 154 in paragraphs 20 and 21 this court has held as under:-