JOKHU ALIAS SHIVNARAYAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 24 -12 -1998 (Annex. P -1) passed by District Magistrate, Ujjain, whereby order of externment was passed against the petitioner and an appellate order dated 12 -8 -99 passed by State (Annex. P -2) rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of competent Authority. To appreciate the grievance raised by the petitioner, few facts need mention.

(2.) SUPERINTENDENT of Police, Ujjain, filed a report under Section 5 (a) and (b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, 'the Act') with the District Magistrate, Ujjain, complaining that petitioner is indulging in criminal activities and is also involved in several offences. It was, therefore, concluded that as a result of petitioner's indulging in continuous criminal activities, the life of a general public at large is in danger. This led to issuance of show cause notice to petitioner as required under Section 8 (1) of the Act as to why the petitioner be not externed. The petitioner filed reply to show cause contending inter alia that he has been acquitted in most of the criminal cases and other cases are all politically motivated. The District Magistrate by its order dated 24 -12 -98 passed order directing externment of the petitioner. He was asked not to reside or visit the districts viz; Dewas, Ratlam, Shajapur, Mandsaur, Dhar, Indore and Neemuch. The petitioner felt aggrieved filed appeal to State under Section 9 of the Act. This appeal was dismissed by order dated 12 -8 -1999 in following words in Hindi: - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) THE main submission of Shri Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner was that if the order of District Magistrate was bad, the order of State in appeal was worst. It was his submission that the appellate Court while disposing of an appeal did not assign any reason except to state that appeal is dismissed. In his submission, unreasoned appellate order is never sustainable and the same has to be quashed. He also made attempt to assail the legality of orders on facts. The State counsel supported the impugned orders as they are on record.