Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikaram Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23446
1 WP-33194-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33194 of 2025
VIKARAM SEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate, District Alirajpur
externing him for a period of six months from local limits of District
Alirajpur and contiguous districts namely, Jhabua, Dhar and Barwani in
exercise of power under Section 5(a)(b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,
1990.
02. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has the
remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section
9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however
submitted that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner
only because he is a Journalist and a Reporter. The order is politically
motivated and is tainted with malafides on part of the District Magistrate.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23446
2 WP-33194-2025
The provisions of Section 5(a)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 have not been
considered in proper perspective. The cases which have been registered
against the petitioner do not justify any action to be taken against him since
in most of them, he has already been acquitted more than 15 years ago. Only
four cases are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner had published
various articles and had also highlighted the facts as regards the illegalities
committed in respect of the property of the erstwhile ruler of Alirajpur being
angered with which the impugned order has been effectuated against the
petitioner. The petition hence deserves to be entertained despite availability
of alternate remedy.
03. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the same
is a detailed and a considered order. It cannot be said to be cryptic in any
manner. All the cases registered against the petitioner have been duly taken
into consideration so has been the reply filed on his behalf. Upon
consideration of the entire material on record, the District Magistrate has
arrived at a satisfaction that it is imperative to pass externment order against
the petitioner. Merely for the reason that the petitioner is a Journalist and
Reporter and has published various articles in newspapers, it cannot be
presumed that the impugned order has been passed only on account of any ill
will against him. In any case, the newspaper publications filed by the
petitioner along with this petition are not any piece of evidence and cannot
be relied upon. The District Magistrate has considered the provisions of
Section 5(a)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and has thereafter passed his order.
Whether the same is legal or not can very well be considered in the statutory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23446
3 WP-33194-2025
appeal and only because the petitioner contends the order to be illegal, the
remedy of appeal cannot be bypassed. The grounds as regards malafide and
ill will against the petitioner are based upon facts and can be much better
appreciated by the Appellate Authority.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and
Others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 434 and Ajju Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2023 SCC
Online MP 1420 in respect of the legal requirements of Section 5(a)(b) of the
Adhiniyam, 1990 but it is observed that in those cases, it is the order of the
Appellate Authority which was under challenge. In Dilawar Khan Vs. State
of M.P. and Others decided by order dated 06.11.2023, the objection as
regards availability of alternate remedy was taken but was not decided hence
is of no avail to the petitioner. In Deepak @ Kuldeep Vs. State of M.P. and
Others W.P. No.19191/2024 decided by order dated 14.08.2024, it is the
appellate order which was under consideration. In Mahmood Vs. State of
M.P. W.P. No.17179/2020 decided by order dated 07.12.2020 repeated show
cause notices had been issued to the petitioner and in those premises, the
same was directly interfered with in a writ petition. The fact situation of the
present case is however entirely different.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and
Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others 2023 SCC Online SC
95 and of the Division Bench of this Court in Alok Kumar Choubey Vs.
State of M.P. and Others, 2021(1) MPLJ 348 to submit that despite
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23446
4 WP-33194-2025
availability of alternate remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be entertained. There cannot be any quarrel with
the said proposition. However, in the available facts of the case, since there
are various disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and it cannot be
said that the impugned order has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or in violation of the principles of
natural justice or without considering the legal provisions as applicable, in
my opinion, it is not a fit case for entertaining this writ petition despite
availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner.
06. Thus, in view of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner
as aforesaid, this petition is declined to be entertained and is accordingly
dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as
available to him under the law. In case appeal is preferred by the petitioner
within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the
Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the
same.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
