RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3- Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) affirming the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 -District Magistrate, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) whereby the District Magistrate has passed an order of externment under the provisions of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1990') and thereby prohibiting the entry of the petitioner for a period of one year to the local limits of District Satna and its adjoining districts.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Satna and against him as many as 31 cases have been registered under IPC , Arms Act , 1959, M.P. Excise Act, 1915, the Public Gambling Act , 1867 etc. and the last offence registered against him was a proceeding under Section 110(6) of Cr.P.C. registered at complaint/Ishtagasa No.62/2016. A show cause notice to this effect was issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2018 on a recommendation dated 25.11.2016 made by the Superintendent of Police, Satna.

(3.) A reply to the aforesaid show cause notice has also been filed by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled therein, also contending that in 30 cases he has already been acquitted/discharged by the Court below and as such there was no occasion to apprehend that the public peace would be in any way jeopardized on account of his activities. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the case of the petitioner is covered by an order dated 02.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12446/2019 in the case of Manish Pratap Singh vs. The State of M.P. and others wherein this Court has held that the externment proceedings have to be initiated in accordance with the object of the Adhiniyam of 1990 as it should be timely and effective to prevent the persons from indulging in any other criminal activity. It is further submitted that in the said case the recommendation was made on 22.04.2016, however the impugned order was passed on 26.11.2018 i.e. after more than 2 1/2 years of the recommendation of the S.P. whereas, in the case on hand, admittedly the recommendation by the S.P. was made on 25.11.2016 and the notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner only on 24.09.2018 and thereafter the final order was passed on 05.11.2018 i.e. after more than two years from the date of recommendation. Thus it is submitted that on this ground only the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.