Ajju @ Azam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6346 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                               ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 23722 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          AJJU @ AZAM S/O SHEIKH BABU, AGED ABOUT 28
                          YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O COMPANY
                          GARDEN BETUL, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND
                                INTERNAL   AFFAIRS, VALLABH  BHAWAN,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER    (REVENUE),   DIVISION
                                NARMADAPURAM, NARMADAPURAM, (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT   MAGISTRATE,         BETUL, DISTRICT
                                BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BETUL DISTRICT
                                BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 23.09.2022, passed by respondent No.2, Commissioner (Revenue), Narmadapuram Division in an appeal, affirming the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM

order dated 01.07.2022, passed by respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Betul, under the provisions of the M.P. Raja Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short 'Adhiniyam, 1990), directing externment of petitioner for a period of one year from the revenue limits of district Betul and its adjoining districts.

The facts in a nutshell are that respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Betul submitted an application before the Collector on 15.06.2022, requesting the proceedings of externment as per Section 5 of the Adhiniyam against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and due to his criminal activities, there is a possibility of breach of peace, which is dangerous to the society at large. On the basis of this application, a show cause

notice dated 17.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner. Pursuant to which a detailed reply was submitted on 21.06.2022 by the petitioner, stating that he has not indulged in any recent activities and therefore, there is no reason for passing any order of externment against him. The Collector, however, passed an order of externment for a period of one year from Betul and its adjourning districts. Against the order of externment, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Narmadapuarm Division, however the same was also dismissed affirming the order passed by the Collector.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of externment directly affects the personal liberty granted under Article 21 and the fundamental freedom granted under Article 19(d) of the Constitution of India. It is stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. He is a law graduate and leading peaceful life. It is stated that there are no recent cases registered against the petitioner and the order of externment has been passed on the basis of old and stale cases in which petitioner has already been

Signature Not Verified acquitted. It is submitted that out of 39 cases, he has been acquitted in 14 of the Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM

cases, however, without application of mind and without considering the record of the petitioner, order of externment on the basis of old and stale cases has been passed which is illegal and perverse and deserved to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom more than 39 cases have been registered at various police stations of district Betul. It is submitted that apart from that Istagaza proceedings under Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the petitioner, but he has not mended his ways. It is further pointed out from the list mentioned in the order of Collector that the petitioner is continuously engaged in serious offences. Hence, looking to the public safety, the Collector has externed him for a period of one year only. It is further pointed out that there is no stay in the present matter and one year period is going to be over on 10th of July, 2023.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 provides for removal of persons about to commit offence as under :-

5. Removal of persons about to commit offence. - Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate-

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are

causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or

(b) that there are reasonably grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM

or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abatement of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property; or

(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant;

the District Magistrate may, by an order in writing duty served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant-

(a) so as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease; or

(b) to remove himself outside the district or my part thereof or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route within such time as the District Magistrate may specify and not to enter or return to the said district or part thereof or such area and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM

A perusal of aforesaid provision shows that a person(s) can be removed from a district, if the acts of person in question are alarming and dangerous to the safety of the persons or society at large. In forming such an opinion the antecedent of the person/accused plays a vital role. If the prior events/acts show that there is reasonable apprehension that such person is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of a person or property and may cause harm and alarm, action under Section 5 of the Act can be taken. However, these act or antecedent history should be proximated the point of time and have a rationable connection with the conclusion arrived.

In the instant case, as evident from the details of cases mentioned in tabular form in the impugned orders, the petitioner was engaged in various illegal and antisocial activities. More than 39 cases, spreading over from 2002 to 2022, were lodged against him under the various provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. According to petitioner, he has been acquitted in 14 cases. Some of such judgments are placed on record. A perusal of these judgments show that in most of the cases the petitioner has been acquitted because the witnesses have turned hostile. This fact in itself shows that the witnesses are terrified to give evidence against him. The Collector has further taken into consideration the fact that earlier instead of passing an order of externment, a lenient view was taken by the authority and petitioner was directed to execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- and to file an undertaking that during the period of one year, he would not commit any offence but instead he again indulged in such activities which resulted in registering a case against him at Crime No.448/2022 under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34 of I.P.C.

The Collector after analyzing the record of petitioner held that presence

Signature Not Verified of petitioner would not be congenial to public peace and order. It is apparent Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM

from the record that this opinion is arrived at after examining the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, which are proximate to the time. Such a finding is not without any basis or substance, hence calls for no interference from this Court.

Petition is dismissed.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE gn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 4/25/2023 4:54:46 PM