Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeetingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5941 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RANJEETINGH S/O SHRI JASWANTSINGH SHAKTAWAT,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT
VILLAGE MUNDEDI, P.S. PIPLIYA MANDI DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAKBOOL AHMAD MANSOORI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE POLICE STATION PIPLIYA MANDI THROUGH
TOWN INSPECTOR POLICE STATION PIPLIYA
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY MS. VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 20th February, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 20-04-2023
18:42:02
(Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, District Mandsaur externing
the petitioner for a period of three months w.e.f. the date of order from the
revenue limits of District Mandsaur and contiguous Districts Neemuch, Ratlam,
Ujjain, Agar Malwa and Shajapur in exercise of powers under Section 5(a)(b) of
M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (here-in-after referred to as (Âœthe
Adhiniyam) and requiring him to notify his movements and to report himself to
the Police Station where he will stay during period of his externment by
exercising powers under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam.
2. On being noticed reply has been filed by the respondents and a
preliminary objection has been raised therein that the petitioner has an alternate
remedy of preferring an appeal under Rule 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 before the
appellate authority, the Commissioner hence in view of availability of such
alternate remedy the petition is not maintainable. It has been further submitted
that the petitioner is a habitual offender and 8 criminal cases are registered
against him most of which are pending. He is actively involved in criminal
activities since 2005. The offences registered against the petitioner are serious in
nature. He is a hyper active criminal, who is involved in breaching public order
and peace amongst the communities hence action under Sections 107, 116 (3)
and 110 have also been taken against him. In view of the criminal antecedents of
the petitioner the externment order has rightly been passed against him after
seeking report from the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur dated 28.11.2022.
It has been found that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the
security of the State and in order to prevent him from doing so it was necessary
to pass the order which has hence rightly been passed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 20-04-2023
18:42:02
4. A perusal of the impugned order of externment shows that the
petitioner has been externed not only from Mandsaur and contiguous Neemuch
and Ratlam Districts but has also been externed from Districts Ujjain, Agar
Malwa and Shajapur which are admittedly not contiguous Districts of District
Mandsaur. In such circumstances the order of petitioner'™s externment from
the aforesaid Districts is beyond jurisdiction. Hence the preliminary objection
raised by the respondents is rejected. Moreover it is also seen that the impugned
order of externment has been passed for a period of three months whereas as
per Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 the appellate authority has the liberty of
deciding the appeal within a period of four months from the date of filing of the
same. There would hence be every possibility of the petitioner preferring an
appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority which may not
be able to decide the same for various reasons within the life of the externment
order which would render the appeal as infructuous and deprive the petitioner
of his right to challenge the order before the higher forum.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents it has been stated that the
petitioner has been involved in criminal activities and has not stopped from
doing so despite initiation of prohibitory proceedings. However from the record
it is apparent that in four cases, as per the respondents themselves, the
proceedings have concluded either by closure of the case or acquittal of the
petitioner on the basis of compromise.
6. The case instituted vide Crime No.316/2020 under Section 34(2) of
the Excise Act has ended in acquittal of the petitioner by judgment dated
21.02.2022. The only case which remains against the petitioner is under
Sections 292, 384 of the IPC read with Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. The other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 20-04-2023
18:42:02
two proceedings against him are under Sections 107, 110 and 116(3) of the
Cr.P.C.
7. On a perusal of the record and the impugned order, I find that the
petitioner's externment order has been passed invoking Section 5 (a) of the
Adhiniyam. For passing an externment order there must be a clear and present
danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of
the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. There
must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so
desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part
thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. A stringent test must be
applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the
detriment of the fundamental freedom. Natural justice must be fairly complied
with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of Articles
14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. This has been so held in Abdul Mannan
V/s. State of M.P. and Others 2008 (III) MPJR 100.
8. In order to pass a restriction order under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam
there should be satisfaction that the person is acting or is likely to act in a
manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public
order and to prevent him it is necessary in the interest of the general public to
pass restriction order.
9. A close scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate shows that there is no satisfaction recorded by him in regard to the
fulfillment of requirement of Section 5(a) & (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The
reasons assigned by the District Magistrate to extern him and to pass a
restriction order against him do not satisfy the basic requirements of the said
provisions. It has merely been observed that the petitioner has been involved in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 20-04-2023
18:42:02
criminal cases from 2005 upto 2022 which are six in number but the result
thereof have not been taken into consideration nor has any finding been
recorded specifically to the effect that the movements or acts of the petitioner
are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property. It has merely been observed that his acts may cause breach of public
order but nothing further has been held. Thus the justification given by the
respondent in the return for passing of the externment order against the
petitioner does not hold ground.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
20.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Mandsaur
deserves to be and is hereby quashed. According the petition is allowed and
disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 20-04-2023
18:42:02
