Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898
1 WP-26923-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 26923 of 2025
PANKAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Eijaz Siddique with Shri Irfan Khan - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate Betul (M.P.) whereby the petitioner has been externed from District Betul and its neighbouring districts for a period of one year in terms of Section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. He is further aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner Narmadapuram Division Narmadapuram dated 24.06.2025 whereby appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed.
2. It is a case of the petitioner that seven criminal cases as find mention in the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 were registered against him and out of which, in five cases, he has already been acquitted. These are (i) Crime No. 1748 of 2014;
(ii) Crime No. 391 of 2015; (iii) Crime No. 189 of 2016; (iv) Crime No. 37 of 2018; (v) Crime No. 574 of 2020. The authorities have taken note of the aforesaid criminal cases registered against the petitioner while preparing the report which was forwarded to the District Magistrate Betul. It is argued that the opinion has been found based upon the old cases which are registered against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 2 WP-26923-2025 There is only one case which is registered against the petitioner in the year 2025 for the offence under Sections 74, 296, 351(2) of BNS vide Crime No. 54 of 2025 at Police Station Ganj District Betul. There is no material placed on record by the respondents-authorities to show that the alleged offences committed by the petitioner are having close proximity enabling the initiation of externment proceedings.
3. Petitioner's counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs State of M.P. reported in (2009) 4 MPLJ 434 and the order passed in the case of Rajesh Nagpure vs State of M.P. :
WP No. 22524 of 2024 decided on 14.10.2024 in support of his arguments. It is submitted that the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police in the report that due to threat of petitioner, none of the witnesses are coming forward to depose against him could not be made out as the names of any of witnesses are not mentioned in the report. It is argued that in terms of Section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, two conditions for passing of externment order are required to be satisfied. Since the conditions mentioned in Section 5(b) are not fulfilled; the externment order against petitioner could not have been passed. It is argued that old cases cannot be considered for the purpose of passing externment order because it is to be considered that commission of offence or abetment of such offence by a person must have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. On these grounds, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
4. State counsel has filed reply to the petition supporting the impugned orders.
It is contended that the petitioner was involved in various crimes such as assault, committing fraud & cheating, extorting money from people, threats on social media etc. and tends to disburse the peace-loving citizens; therefore, the action Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 3 WP-26923-2025 was required to be taken against him at appropriate time preventing its flare up in the wide area. Looking to the object and reasons of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, as some effective preventive action was required to be taken by the authorities, the impugned action is taken against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police made recommendation dated 08.10.2024 to the District Magistrate Betul to initiate proceedings for externment against the petitioner in terms of Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The District Magistrate issued a show cause notice on 25.10.2024 under Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 asking the petitioner to appear on 13.11.2024. Though the petitioner appeared but reply was not filed despite opportunities given to him and thereafter the externment order was passed. Full opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the order. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is continuously engaged in commission of offences. The Superintendent of Police while recommending the case of the petitioner for initiation of externment proceedings considered the criminal cases registered against him. The petitioner was found involved in criminal cases and found to be threat to the society at large. There is a threat of the petitioner in the entire society. The petitioner is a criminal mentality person and owing to threat of the petitioner, people are not coming forward to depose against him. Therefore, the argument advanced that there is no material with the authorities to show that the witnesses are coming forward to depose against the petitioner, is not available to him. Though the petitioner was granted acquittal in some cases which were settled in the Lok Adalat by the petitioner but that does not amount to clear acquittal. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner as well as his continuous involvement in criminal cases, the petitioner's externment was in public interest and was required to be passed. It is submitted that the externment order is rightly passed by the authorities. The only requirement under Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 4 WP-26923-2025 the Adhiniyam, 1990 was to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the externment order and the same was given. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police was made on 08.10.2024 to the District Magistrate Betul regarding initiation of proceedings for externment against the petitioner in terms of Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The Superintendent of Police while forming an opinion has taken note of eleven criminal cases against the petitioner. These are (i) Crime No. 1748 of 2014 at P.S. Kotwali Betul; (ii) Crime No. 391 of 2015 at P.S. Kotwali Betul; (iii) Crime No. 189 of 2016 at P.S. Kotwali Betul; (iv) Crime No. 37 of 2018 at P.S. Ganj District Betul; (v) Crime No. 352 of 2020 at P.S. Kotwali Betul; (vi) Crime No. 1351 of 2022 at P.S. Multai District Betul; (vii) Crime No. 574 of 2020 at P.S. Amla District Betul;
(viii) Crime No. 07 of 2023 at P.S. Kotwali; (ix) Crime No. 765 of 2024 at P.S. Kotwali; (x) Crime No. 286 of 2022 at P.S. Ganj District Betul; (xi) Crime No. 283 of 2024 at P.S. Ganj District Betul as also one Ishtgasha No. 47 of 2024 for offence under Section 129 of BNSS. The Superintendent of Police District Betul has recommended for initiation of externment proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of criminal cases registered against him which is reflected from the document (Annexure R/2) filed by the respondents. Relevant portion of the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police is reproduced as under :
--
... अनावेदक पंकज अतुलकर क आपरािधक गित विध लगातार बढती जा रह है । े क जनता म भय उ प न हो चुका है कोई भी य अनावेदक के व द थाना/ चौक म रपोट करने से भयभीत है । अनावेदक के कृ यो के कारण कानून यव था क थित उ प न होने क संभावना बनी रहती है ।
अनावेदक क आपरािधक गित विधय के कारण थाना कोतवाली बैतूल े क लोक एवं शांित यव था को खतरा उ प न हो गया है ।Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 5 WP-26923-2025 ...
अतः अनुरोध है क अनावेदक पंकज पता िभखार लाल अतुलकर उ 35 साल िनवासी कृ णपुरा वाड ी वनायकम कूल के पास टकार बैतूल जला बैतूल क आपरािधक व असमा जक गित विधय के कारण थाना कोतवाली बैतूल े क लोक एवं शांित यव था को गंभीर खतरा उ प न हो गया है ।
अनावेदक पंकज पता िभखार लाल अतुलकर उ 35 साल िनवासी कृ णपुरा वाड ी वनायकम कूल के पास टकार बैतूल जला बैतूल क उ आपरािधक एवं असमा जक गित विधय पर अंकुश लगाने के िलये अनावेदक के व द म य दे श रा य सुर ा अिधिनयम 1990 क धारा 5 (क) (ख) के तहत ् इ तगासा तैयार कर आपक और उिचत आदे शाथ सादर े षत है ।
7. From perusal of the aforesaid, it transpires that on the recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Betul, the District Magistrate Betul has passed the order of externment against the petitioner.
8. The M.P. Rajya Surakasha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been enacted to provide for the security of the State, maintenance of public order and certain other matters connected therewith. Section 5 thereof under which the order of externment has been passed, is important and quoted hereinbelow -
"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 or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment 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 duly 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 any 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 6 WP-26923-2025 which he was directed to remove himself."
9. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that there should be reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence as mentioned under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The order of externment has to be passed considering the close proximity of time when the offences are committed by the accused. The second aspect which is required to be considered is the opinion of the District Magistrate to the effect that the 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. These two conditions are required to be satisfied by the authorities prior to passing the externment order.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 181 had an occasion to deal with Section 47 of the Bombay Police Act, 1978, which contains provisions similar to Section 5 of the Act of 1990 and while referring these essential conditions for passing an order under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act which are also similar to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1990, has held as under :
"Section 47 consists of two parts. First part relates to that satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police or any Authorised Officer reaching a conclusion that movement or act of any person are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of enumerated offences or in the abetment of any such offence or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large hazardous to the community. Opinion of the Concerned Officer has to be formed that witnesses are not willing to come forward in public to give evidence against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property. After these opinions are formed on the basis of materials forming foundation therefore the Commissioner can pass an order adopting any of the available options as provided in the provision itself. The three options are -- (1) to direct such person to so conduct himself as deemed necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or (2) to direct him to remove himself outside any part of Delhi or (3) to remove himself outside whole of Delhi."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 7 WP-26923-2025
11. From perusal of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are analyzed, it is seen that recommendation of Superintendent of Police is based upon the criminal cases which are registered against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police was required to consider the aspect that the commission of offence or the abetment of such offence by the petitioner should have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. If a person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an offence of the type mentioned in Section 5(b), several years or several months' back, there cannot be any reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of such offence. The offences which were committed by the petitioner were duly considered by the Superintendent of Police while sending recommendation to the District Magistrate Betul for initiating externment proceedings against him. These are as follows :
Sl.No. Crime No. Offences under Sections 1 1748 of 2014 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC 2 391 of 2015 294, 323, 506, 34 & 342 of IPC 3 189 of 2016 419 & 384 of IPC 4 37 of 2018 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC 5 352 of 2020 188 of IPC 6 1351 of 2020 294, 448, 506, 34 of IPC 332, 353, 147, 148, 149, 188, 333, 294 of 7 574 of 2020 IPC 8 07 of 2023 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 294 of IPC 9 765 of 2024 420 and 384 of IPC 10 286 of 2022 505 of IPC 11 283 of 2024 196(1), 351(3) of BNS Istgasha No. 47 of 12 129 of BNSS 2024
12. From the aforesaid, it is clear that eleven criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and the twelfth case relates to prohibitory proceedings initiated under Section 129 of BNSS. It is clear that one offence was registered in the year 2014; one in the year 2015; one in the year 2016, one in the year 2018;
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 8 WP-26923-2025 three in the year 2020; two in the year 2022; one in the year 2023 and two in the year 2024. Out of these cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in Crime No. 1748 of 2014, Crime No. 391 of 2015, Crime No. 189 of 2016, Crime No. 37 of 2018 and Crime No. 574 of 2020. The aforesaid cases could not have been considered by the Superintendent of Police for forwarding the recommendations to initiate externment proceedings. From the perusal of the FIR which was registered against the petitioner in the year 2025 i.e. Crime No. 54 of 2025 for offence under Sections 74, 296, 351(2) of BNS, it is seen that it is an individual act committed by him which does not have any impact upon the society at large. By individual act of the petitioner, he will be facing a criminal trial for the same but his individual act does not affect public peace; therefore, the externment proceedings could not have been passed based upon such case.
13. The second condition which is required to be satisfied for passing of an order of externment against a person is the opinion of the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate has to form an opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay, (1952) 1 SCC 683 while construing a pari materia provision with Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 has observed as under :
"The law is certainly an extra-ordinary one and has been made only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certain bad characters whose presence in certain areas constitute a menace to the safety or the public residing therein."
14. In the light of the aforesaid, if the case of the petitioner is analyzed, then it is seen that the District Magistrate in the impugned order has baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he is a habitual Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 9 WP-26923-2025 criminal and because of his fear and terror in public, nobody is coming forward to depose against the petitioner and the opinion was formed by the District Magistrate for externment. However, the fact remains that who are the witnesses who are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner or the witnesses of the criminal cases which are registered against the petitioner, whether they have approached the Court or in public to give their statements against the petitioner, is not reflected from the opinion of the District Magistrate.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi vs Sanjeev alias Bittu (supra) has held that it is not the sufficiency of material but the existence of material which is sine qua non for passing an externment order. The relevant is as under :
"It is true that some material must exist but what is required is not an elaborate decision akin to a judgment. On the contrary, the order directing externment should show existence of some material warranting an order of externment. While dealing with question mere repetition of the provision would not be sufficient. Reference to be made to some material on record and if that is done the requirements of law are met. As noted above, it is not the sufficiency of material but the existence of material which is sine qua non."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 1 SCC 372 had an occasion to consider the similar issue and placing reliance upon the judgment in the case Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay, has held that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act (which is in pari materia with the provisions of 5 of the Adhiniyam) are strictly complied with and that the slender safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the proposed externee.
17. The M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 imposes serious restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India as well as right to personal liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 10 WP-26923-2025 India. Until and unless the conditions mentioned under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of externment could not have been passed by the authorities. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs State of M.P. (supra) had an occasion to deal with the similar issue and it is held as under :
"Unless the conditions mentioned under section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of externment, will have to be quashed by the Court. The two conditions, for passing an order of externment against a person, to be satisfied are:
(i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence; and
(ii) 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.
In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned order only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and because of this there is fear and terror in the public and has not recorded any clear opinion on the basis of materials, that in his opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property. Hence, in the absence of any existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a reason of apprehension to danger to their person or property to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate by merely repeating the language of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. The two conditions for an order of externment stated in section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 do not exist in this case and the order passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate order of the Commissioner are liable to be quashed.
18. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Nagpure vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 22524 of 2024 decided on 14.10.2024 has observed as under :
12. If the facts of present case are considered, then it is clear that six criminal cases for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC were registered against the petitioner. One offence was registered in the year 2012, one was registered in the year 2018, two were registered in the year 2020, one was registered in the year 2022 and the last one was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 11 WP-26923-2025 registered in the year 2023. The recommendation for initiating proceedings under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam was sent by Superintendent of Police, Balaghat on 17/10/2023.
13. It is well established principle of law that the criminal history must have close proximity with the proceedings under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that offences registered against the petitioner in the year 2012, 2018, 2020 had any close proximity with the recommendation sent by the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat for initiating proceedings under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
14. So far as the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC are concerned, the same are trivial in nature. No offence of any nature except under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC was ever registered against the petitioner. There is nothing on record that in which case the witnesses had not appeared before the Court on account of pressure/ terror of the petitioner. Old and stale cases cannot be taken into consideration.
..
17. If the facts and circumstances of this case are tested on the anvil of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Deepak (supra) as well as judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Gangaram (supra) and Meena Sonkar (supra), it is clear that old and stale cases have been taken into consideration. Another two offences which were registered in the year 2022 & 2023 are trivial in nature. There is no material on record to suggest that witnesses were afraid of the petitioner and were not willing to come forward to depose against him. Kamal Singh Gehlot, SHO Police Station Gramin Navegaon in his statement had stated that petitioner has been convicted in some of the trials which clearly means that witnesses were not afraid of the petitioner and they were deposing against him. Furthermore, it is clear from the statement of SHO Police Station Gramin Navegaon, District Balaghat that the very purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam was to keep the petitioner away from election proceedings.
19. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gangaram vs Commissioner, Indore Division, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine MP 6019 had an occasion to deal with the object and reasons of the Adhiniyam and considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
10. It is also not disputed that in the show cause notice, reference of only one case was made, which was registered on 24-9-2018; and the show cause notice was issued on 11-9-2020 i.e. after almost two years of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 12 WP-26923-2025 registration of the offence, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur on 7-12-2020. Thus, it is apparent that not only that the impugned order has been passed after two years of the case registered against the petitioner, but it also contained reference of one more case registered against the petitioner on 14-10-2020. This Court in the case of Sudeep Patel v. State of M.P., (2018) 3 MP LJ 413 passed in M.P. No. 904/2017 on 9-1-2018 has already held that the purpose of initiation of extemment proceedings is to restrain a person from committing another offence in the near future and in such circumstances the order of extemment must be passed within the close proximity of the offences committed by the petitioner. The relevant paras of the same are reads as under:--
"8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned District Magistrate while passing the impugned order was oblivious of the statement of object and reasons of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 which provides as under:
"STATEMENT OF OBJECT AND REASONS For want of adequate enabling provisions in existing laws for taking effective preventive action to counteract activities of anti-social elements Government have been handicapped to maintain law and order. In order to take timely and effective preventive action it is felt that the Government should be armed with adequate power to nip the trouble in the bud so that peace, tranquility and orderly Government may not be endangered.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Even according to section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 which is in respect of power to make restriction order, it is for preventing any person from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Thus the sole purpose of the Adhiniyam of 1990 is to act timely and effectively to initiate preventive action against a wrongdoer, which object, in the considered opinion of this Court has been totally lost sight of while passing the impugned order. As is already observed that the show cause notice was issued on 11-6-2015, the reply was filed by the petitioner on 14-7-2015 and thereafter the final order was passed by the District Magistrate after recording the statements of various police personnel on 23-5-2017, whereas the District Magistrate ought to have proceeded with the matter expeditiously without affording any undue adjournments to either of the parties and passed the order within a reasonable time but the matter was kept pending for almost two years. In such circumstances, although no period of limitation is provided in the Adhiniyam, but still, the order should have been passed by the District Magistrate within a reasonable time frame. The order in itself was passed by the District Magistrate within a period of around two years and during this entire period the petitioner was roaming around freely Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 13 WP-26923-2025 and there is no allegation that during this period also he committed any offense, thus the application of the provisions of Adhiniyam appears to be totally redundant.
10. The District Magistrates, exercising their powers under the Adhiniyam must understand that it is not a mere formality which they have to perform before passing the order of externment under the Adhiniyam which directly affects a person's life and liberty guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the opinion that in a way, the preventive detention is akin to the provisions of externment under the Adhiniyam for both these measures are preventive in nature and are enacted with a view to provide safe environment to the public at large. The only difference being that in case of preventive detention, the threat is imminent and serious whereas in case of extemment, its degree is somewhat obtuse and mollified and is not as serious as it is in the case of preventive detention. The necessity to pass an order of preventive detention has been emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613 which is equally applicable to the cases of extemment. The relevant paras of the same read as under:-- "Preventive detention : Meaning and concept
32. There is no authoritative definition of "preventive detention" either in the Constitution or in any other statute. The expression, however, is used in contradistinction to the word "punitive". It is not a punitive or penal provision but is in the nature of preventive action or precautionary measure. The primary object of preventive detention is not to punish a person for having done something but to intercept him before he does it. To put it differently, it is not a penalty for past activities of an individual but is intended to pre-empt the person from indulging in future activities sought to be prohibited by a relevant law and with a view to preventing him from doing harm in future.
33. In Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. explaining the concept of preventive detention, the Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Ray, C.J. stated :
"19. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is die satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished on proof of his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 14 WP-26923-2025 preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent."
34. In another leading decision in Khudiram Das v. State of W.B . this Court stated :
"8. ... The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. pointed out in State of Madras v. V.G. Row that preventive detention is 'largely precautionary and based on suspicion' and to these observations may be added the following words uttered by the learned Chief Justice in that case with reference to the observations of Lord Finlay in R. v. Halliday, namely, that 'the Court was the least appropriate tribunal to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based'. This being the nature of the proceeding, it is impossible to conceive how it can possibly be regarded as capable of objective assessment. The matters which have to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, would be likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated in any of sub- clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 3, and if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from so acting ..."
35. Recently, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India the Court said :
"8. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so. It, therefore, becomes imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authority to be very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in securing the detenu and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority will defeat the very purpose of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 15 WP-26923-2025 preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which no adequate explanation is furnished, led to the assumption that the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped. (See P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India, Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Admn. and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of T.N.)"
11. Thus, testing the validity of the impugned order on the anvil of the principles so laid down by the Apex Court, it becomes manifestly clear that the order is flawed and cannot be sustained as there is an inordinate delay in passing the impugned order, which has led to loose its effectiveness."
20. Again, in Meena Sonkar vs State of M.P., reported in (2017) 2 MP LJ 565, this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Patel (supra) has held as under :
16. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v.
State of M.P., 2009 (4) M.P.L.J. 434 after considering section 5 of the Act held thus: "8. The expression is engaged or is about to be engaged"
in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence, shows that the commission of the offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be passed under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. Hence, if a person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an offence of the type mentioned in section 5(b), several years or several months back, there cannot be any reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of such offence."
21. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that old and stale cases have been taken into consideration by the authorities for forming an opinion to pass the externment order against the petitioner. There is no material placed on record to suggest that who are the witnesses who are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. There was no concrete material to show that witnesses in pending criminal cases were refusing to testify in court due to apprehension of harm. Further, there was no recent incident of violence or grave threat close to the date of the externment order that could demonstrate an immediate and ongoing risk to public order or property.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22898 16 WP-26923-2025 The order of externment cannot be justified merely on the basis of old, stale and largely minor cases. There must be a live link between the person's current conduct and the perceived threat to society. Passing of externment order should have close proximity with commission of offence.
22. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of the settled legal proposition enunciated in the aforesaid cases, it can safely be concluded that the conditions as contained in Section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are not complied with by the respondents- authorities. Therefore, the impugned order of externment dated 20.03.2025 becomes unsustainable. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority. Hence, the order passed by the Commissioner Narmadapuram Division Narmadapuram dated 24.06.2025 affirming the externment order passed by the District Magistrate Betul is also unsustainable. Both the orders dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 24.06.2025 (Annexure P/3) are quashed.
23. Consequently, the petition is allowed and disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:15:18