GYAN SINGH GURJAR Vs. DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15/04/2019 passed by respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 23/07/2018 passed by respondent no. 3.

(2.) The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Village - Beelkhedi, District - Dewas and being a social and political face, the petitioner is having political rivalry with various opponents in the locality and in order to defame the petitioner, various false FIRs have been lodged against him. On 23/07/2018, respondent no. 3 has passed the externment order against the petitioner. The said order has been passed without any giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order came into notice of the petitioner later on. He thereafter obtained certified copy of the impugned order dated 23/07/2018 and filed an appeal against the said order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15/04/2019. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the orders are illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. No notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the externment order. He further submitted that respondent no. 3 has passed the order on the basis that there are numbers of criminal cases pending against him. He submits that in all the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted except one case and all other preventive actions have been dropped against the petitioner since long back. The findings recorded that the petitioner is still engaged in criminal activity is also baseless and without any evidence. He further submits that the respondent no. 3 has not mentioned that none of the witnesses has come forward to give evidence against the petitioner. He further submits that no name has been mentioned in the said order. No opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses has been given to the petitioner. He further submits that the cases which have been registered against the petitioner, are old cases and after the year 2017, there is no complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. While passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 has not followed the procedure as given under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajya Surakshya Adhiniyam, 1990. He further relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P and others reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ, 434 as well as passed by Single Bench in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Ben v. State of M.P and others reported in 2005(4) MPHT 102 as well as in the case of Vinod S/o Devnarayan Meena v. State of M.P and others reported in 2016(2) MPLJ 650.