Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)
Veeru @ Virendra Rai vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 15 September, 2014 cites

M/S Ashok Kumar Mani Bhai Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 December, 2013

8: From the proceedings, it is also not clear whether there was any apprehension that the petitioner would continue to commit the offence if he is not removed from the area. For the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, which according to law is required to be recorded before passing any such order of removal under Section 5 of the Act, the enquiry is required to be conducted. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with in such aspect in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others [2009(4) MPLJ 434] has categorically held that it is not mere a formality to record the satisfaction, but it is a requirement of law and mere involvement of such a person in the past in any such type of offence would not make out a case for his removal from the area. The findings recorded by the Division Bench in this respect in paragraphs 8 and 9 would be relevant which read thus :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Chander Kala vs Ram Kishan And Anr. on 1 May, 1985

9: On earlier occasion also, this Court while dealing in a case of externment ordered in such circumstances has categorically held that there are certain condition precedent to initiate any action under Section 6 of the Act as has been held in the case of Kala Vs. State of M.P. and another [2004(4) MPLJ 234]. In light of these pronouncement if it is examined whether there was sufficient material to hold that the petitioner was involved in such activities, it would be clear from the fact that gambling act though alleged against the petitioner in some of the cases, but except for the year 2003, the said act was repeated only in the year 2008, and there was no recent past involvement of the petitioner in the said case. As against these matters, in some of the cases, there was no involvement of the petitioner and this fact has not been verified by the District Magistrate Damoh, yet keeping in mind the said offences registered against the petitioner, order of externment was passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next