Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 823
1 W.P. No.12446 of 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
WRIT PETITION NO.12446 OF 2019
Manish Pratap Singh
Vs.
The State of M.P. and others
Present :-
Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt Sharda Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
(Passed on this the 02nd day of August, 2019) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in an appeal by the respondent No.3 - Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) whereby the order of externment dated 26.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.4.- District Magistrate, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) has been affirmed.
2. In brief, the undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is a history sheeter having as many as 12 cases registered against him under IPC and under the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and apart from that certain prohibitory actions have been initiated against him under Sections 107, 116 and 110 of Cr.P.C. A list of offences registered against the petitioner is as under : 2 W.P. No.12446 of 2019
S.No. Crime No. under Sections
1 74/2012 294, 323, 327, 506B, 34 of IPC
2 60/2012 395, 397 IPC, 11/13 A.D. Act
3 102/2012 294, 323, 327, 506B, 34 of IPC
4 439/2013 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 506, 325, 34
of IPC
5 490/2013 341, 294, 323, 327, 506, 34 of IPC
6 463/2014 3/ 4 of Sarvajanik Dhoot Adhiniyam,
19
7 483/2014 294, 323, 506 of IPC
8 28/2016 3 /4 of Gambling Act
9 28/2012 41(2), 110 Cr.P.C.
10 453/2013 107, 116 of Cr.P.C.
11 11/2015 110 of Cr.P.C.
12 11/2016 110 of Cr.P.C.
3. Looking to the petitioner's antecedents and his demeanor in public, the Superintendent of Police, Satna vide his letter dated 22.04.2016 recommended to the District Magistrate, Satna that proceedings under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1990') be initiated against the petitioner for his externment and subsequently on 25.11.2016 another recommendation was made by the S.P., Satna. On receiving the aforesaid recommendations, the District Magistrate, Satna issued a notice to the petitioner who also submitted his reply on 14.11.2018 contending that the petitioner is a resident of Satna and in most of the cases registered against him he has already been acquitted and subsequently certain cases have been registered against him but 3 W.P. No.12446 of 2019 the same are only prohibitory proceedings under Cr.P.C. Thus it is submitted that the externment proceedings be dropped. On considering the aforesaid reply, the District Magistrate vide his order dated 26.11.2018 has allowed the recommendation and has externed the petitioner for a period of one year from the District Satna and the adjoining districts. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in appeal and against the order passed by the Commissioner this petition has been preferred.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order has been passed without following due procedure as no witness was examined in support of the application submitted by Superintendent of Police. The counsel has further submitted that even otherwise the case is covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of Pankaj Singh @ Soun Singh vs State of M.P. and others reported as 2018 (3) M.P.L.J. 319 whereby this Court has emphasized the passing the order of externment under the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1990 without any delay whereas in the present case the recommendation was made on 22.04.2016 but the impugned order has been passed only on 26.11.2018 i.e. after more than 2 ½ years from the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order being contrary to law and against the spirit of the Adhiniyam be quashed.
4 W.P. No.12446 of 2019
5. Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner in passing the order of externment against the petitioner as he was found to be involved in various criminal cases and his presence in the area was a matter of concern to the public at large as also the officers concerned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record made available by the counsel for the State.
7. From the record, this Court finds that the recommendation to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1990 was initially made by the Superintendent of Police, Satna on 22.04.2016 and the proceedings were initiated by the District Magistrate on 09.06.2016. From 09.06.2016 till 24.04.2018, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the State's witnesses but as nobody appeared, hence on 24.04.2018, the evidence was closed and the notice to the petitioner was issued. The petitioner's counsel appeared on 26.10.2018 and sought time to file reply and after one date, his right to file reply was closed on 05.11.2018 and the case was fixed for orders with liberty to the petitioner to file written submissions which were filed on 14.11.2018. The final order was passed on 26.11.2018.
8. A perusal of the petitioner's reply reveals that is a cryptic 5 W.P. No.12446 of 2019 reply mentioning that after 2014 there has been no offence registered against the petitioner and also that he has been falsely implicated in the offences due to political rivalry. This Court also finds that even in the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the District Magistrate it is mentioned that the last offence registered against the petitioner under IPC was Crime No.483/2014 and thereafter lastly in the year 2016 one case under the Gambling Act was registered against him and the other five cases in the years 2012 and 2013 are under IPC, other four cases in the years 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 are the prohibitory proceedings under Sections 110, 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. So far as the offence of dacoity at Crime No. 60/2012 against the petitioner is concerned, he has already been acquitted in the aforesaid offence, copy of the order of acquittal is also placed on record. Thus, it cannot be said that soon before the order of externment was passed against the petitioner he was indulging in the offences which may be considered to be serious in nature as the serious offence in which he was involved in the year 2012 he has already been acquitted.
9. Above all, this Court also finds that the Superintendent of Police has recommended the proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner on 22.04.2016, the evidence of only one police witness has been recorded that too on 23.01.2017 i.e. after around 8 months whereas the order was passed by the District Magistrate on 6 W.P. No.12446 of 2019 26.11.2018 i.e. after one whole year after the witness was examined. Thus, a substantial period of more than 2 ½ years had already been elapsed when the order of externment was passed.
10. This Court, time and again has emphasized that an order of externment has to be passed soon after the notice to show cause is served on the petitioner. Of course, the principles of natural justice cannot be bygone while proceeding further but inordinate delay in disposing of such applications clearly defeat the very purpose for which the Adhiniyam of 1990 has been enacted. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the statement of object and reasons of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 which reads 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.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx"
(emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, a bare perusal of the same reveals that very purpose of the Adhiniyam of 1990 is to take timely and effective action which is 7 W.P. No.12446 of 2019 preventive in nature. As has been discussed above, more than 2 ½ years have already been trifled away for no apparent reasons and during this entire period, no offense was registered against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the order passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the order itself has been passed by the D.M. after undue delay and thus, is a stale order passed against the petitioner for offences committed by him at an earlier period of time having no proximity with the order of externment.
12. As a result, the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.4/District Magistrate, Satna (M.P.) as well as the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) are hereby quashed.
13. The petition stands allowed.
14. No costs.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge 02/08/2019 DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2019.08.03 10:59:34 +05'30'