RAVINDRA SINGH SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHAYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W. P. No. 1801/2009 have been dealt with.

(2.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order of externment dated 06th november. 2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate, Morena and is also aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by an order dated 25th March, 2009 by the commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena (Annexure P/l ). The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to a family having a political background and the father of the petitioner is holding the post of Sarpanch for the last 40 years and he was elected as the President, Co-operative Society sikronda. Jaura, District Morena. The petitioner has further stated that a show cause notice was issued to him on 3rd December, 2004 as per the provisions of the Madhya pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1990) and a reply was filed by him. The petitioner has categorically informed the District Magistrate in the reply filed by him that only 3 cases are pending against him and all the other cases have come to an end without any punishment in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his reply and the cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted, the District Magistrate, Morena has passed an order of externment for a period of one year. His further contention is that the commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, in a most mechanical manner has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26th March, 2009.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has categorically stated before this Court that while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner on 3rd December, 2004, the respondent/district Magistrate has not provided him copy of the statement of the police officers recorded in the matter and copy of the statement of the witnesses recorded in the matter. Learned counsel has further stated that in paragraph 2 while passing the order of externment, the District Magistrate has categorically observed that he has recorded the statement of certain police officers as well as independent witnesses, however, these statements were not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by the respondents. In support of his contention, he has relied a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Dinnu alias Dinesh v. State of M. P. , reported in 2005 II MPJR SN 16.