Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju @ Batla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1 WP-18858-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18858-2019
(RAJU @ BATLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-11-2019
Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.P. Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by orders
dated 13.08.2019 and 30.04.2019 contained in Annexure-P/4 and P/1
respectively.
Superintendent of Police Tikamgarh filed a complaint before District
Magistrate and requested for externment of petitioner from District
Tikamgarh on ground that public is not coming forward against petitioner
Raju @ Batla to give evidence and presence of petitioner is prejudicial to
public order. Following cases were registered against him:
S.No. Case No. Under Section
1. 29/08 379 of IPC
2. 327/15 15 of Gambling Act
3. 44/16 323, 324, 34 of IPC
4. 223/17 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC
5. 321/17 323, 324, 294, 506 of IPC
6. 44/18 376, 344, 506 of IPC
7. 174/18 341, 294, 506, 34 of IPC
and eight time prohibiting orders were passed against petitioner but had
no effect upon petitioner.
Petitioner as per provisions of Section 8 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 was issued show cause notice and on 03.11.2018
filed reply to show cause notice and stated therein that he was acquitted in
aforesaid cases. The cases were registered against him due to political
motivation and malafidely statements of T.I. Brijesh Kashyap, Gajendra
Raikwar and Sunita Raikwar.
Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Date: 28/11/2019 16:47:28
2 WP-18858-2019
District Magistrate externed petitioner from District of Tikamgarh vide
its order dated 30.04.2019 for period of 1 year i.e. till 02.04.2020 on grounds
mentioned in Section 5 (a) and 5(6) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,
1990.
District Magistrate passed order of externment on grounds that people
are not coming forward to give evidence and lodge complaint against
petitioner, he is habitual offender, he is a hurdle in maintenance of public
order and petitioner is causing alarm to person and property. It was further
mentioned that petitioner did not adduce any evidence to counter nor his
reply was found satisfactory.
Appeal filed by petitioner i.e. 55/Appeal/19-20 was dismissed vide
order dated 13.08.2019 affirming order of Collector.
Petitioner has filed the present petition on grounds that (i) petitioner is
engaged or about to engage in commission of offence, (ii) In list of cases it is
not mentioned which cases are pending, (iii) Petitioner was not given
reasonable opportunity of heaving, (iv) No foundation under Section 5(6) of
the Act, (v) No material to show that witnesses are not coming forward to
give evidence against petitioner and (vi) Not considered document, affidavit
and reply submitted by petitioner.
There is no force in grounds taken from serial No.1 to 5. There is
sufficient material on record to show that such grounds actually does exist in
view of material available against petitioner.
So far as grounds No.6 mentioned above is concerned it has force.
District Magistrate has only written in order that reply is not found
satisfactory but has not given any reason why reply is not found satisfactory
nor has discussed about the documents filed by the petitioner so there is no
substantial compliance of Section 8 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,
1990. District Magistrate is not only required to give opportunity of tendering
evidence and cross-examine witnesses but had to apply its mind on the
defence/reply of non-applicant against whom proceedings are initiated and
Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Date: 28/11/2019 16:47:28
3 WP-18858-2019
reach subjective satisfaction regarding existence or non-existence of grounds
for externment. In present case, District Magistrate has not considered the
reply and documents filed by the petitioner and no reason is given why same
is to be rejected or disbelieved. Petitioner case for refuting the grounds
existing against him was not considered by District Magistrate and
Commissioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated
13.08.2019 and 30.04.2019 are hereby quashed.
.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-
Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 28/11/2019 16:47:28