Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajjan Yadav on 10 February, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
WRIT APPEAL No. 529 of 2021
Between:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
COMMISSIONER DIVISION JABALPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. STATE OF M.P. THR. STATION HOUSE
OFFICER P.S KHAMARIYA DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI AJAY PRATAP SIGH, LEARNED DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL )
AND
RAJJAN YADAV S/O BHAGAT RAM YADAV ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE KAKARTALA DUMNA ROAD P.S.
KHAMARIYA DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VASANT R. DANIAL, LEARNED COUNSEL)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Reserved on : 03.12.2021
Passed on : 10.02.2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per : Sheel Nagu, J.:
JUDGMENT
The instant intra-Court appeal filed u/S. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005,
assails final order dated 31.05.2021 passed in W.P. No.18600/2020 by the
learned Single Judge exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution allowing the petition in question with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be
paid by the District Magistrate in favour of petitioner, by which challenge
was made to order of externment passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur on
06.11.2016 upheld by the appellate authority, Commissioner, Jabalpur on
11.11.2020.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties on the
question of admission as well as final disposal.
3. Learned Single Judge has found that impugned order of externment
was passed without affording due and sufficient opportunity of being heard
to respondent. The Single Bench found that the District Magistrate in a
slipshod and cursory manner without applying mind to the gravity of
criminal prosecution against respondent and in post haste manner
completed the proceedings of externment. The Court also found that the
appellate authority for reasons best known to it did not notice glaring
illegality and irregularity in the order of District Magistrate. Learned Single
Judge further found that the issue raised in the petition was squarely
covered by an earlier Single Bench decision in the case of Ramlakhan
Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.18605/2020 on
09.02.2021.
4. This Court having gone through the record and having heard learned
counsel for rival parties sees no reason to take a different view than the one
taken by learned Single Judge.
5. Coming to the aspect of cost, learned State counsel has relied upon
Division Bench decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Shriniwas Sharma, (2005) ILR MP 564 to contend that when an executive
authority exercises powers which are quasi judicial in nature, is protected
by the umbrella of "act done in good faith", and therefore, since there was
nothing malafide on the part of District Magistrate while passing the order
of externment, imposition of cost is uncalled for.
6. This Court has already held that on merits the order of externment
was rightly quashed by learned Single Judge. The cost imposed by learned
Single Judge was owing to the District Magistrate acting in gross violation
of the statutory provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, and failing
to follow the time tested principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge
was of the view that an order of externment in the given facts and
circumstances was not called for, and therefore, the respondent
herein/petitioner was compelled to file an avoidable piece of litigation in
shape of the writ petition, thereby wasting the precious time of this Court
which could have been utilized in more pressing matters. With this thought
in mind, learned Single Judge imposed the cost.
7. Interference in the quantum of cost is possible only when it is either
exorbitant from the point of view of the status of appellants or
unreasonable. We have already held above that the cost imposed was for a
reasonable cause. As regards the cost being exorbitant, this Court is of the
firm view that from the point of view of the State, cost of Rs.20,000/-
cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as exorbitant.
8. However, the entire cost of Rs.20,000/- ought not to be awarded to
petitioner therein; but a part of it deserves to go to the coffers of the High
Court whose precious time was wasted in dealing with writ petition and this
writ appeal. Accordingly, out of Rs.20,000/- cost awarded, Rs.10,000/- shall
go to the petitioner/respondent herein while remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be
deposited in the Registry of this Court for being utilized for purchase of
material, equipments etc. required for arranging preventive measures for
dealing with the third wave of Covid-19 pandemic in the High Court
Campus.
9. Let cost of Rs.10,000/- each be deposited by the appellants through
digital transfer in the bank account of respondent herein and the High Court
within thirty days from today, failing which this matter be listed as PUD for
execution qua cost.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order of learned Single Judge is upheld
with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(SHEEL NAGU) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUSTICE JUDGE
Sateesh
Digitally signed by SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Date: 2022.02.11 10:24:25
+05'30'
