Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/12193/2022 of GOKUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIAON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12193 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GOKUL S/O SATYANARAYAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 25Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGETALAWALI, DEPALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAYANK VERMA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SHRI ARUNSINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
2.COMMISSIONER INDORE DIVISION, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)4.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India challenging the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Indore, whereby he has been externed for a period of sixmonths from the territory of District - Indore and near by Districts namelyUjjain, Dewas, Dhar, Khargone and Khandwa. The aforesaid order waschallenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Commissioner, IndoreDivision which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2022.
02. Vide order dated 30.02.2022, this Court has stayed the execution ofimpugned externment order.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hasalready undergone almost two months out of six months, therefore, theexternment of 06 months be reduced to the period already undergone. It isfurther submitted that out of four criminal cases, the petitioner has beenacquitted in two cases and two cases are still under consideration. The offencesare not heinous in nature. The reply filed by the petitioner has not beenconsidered. The order of externment has been passed mechanically underSection 5(a) & 5(b) of the M.P. State Security Act, 1990. It is a settled law thatonly on the basis of number of criminal cases, the order of externment shouldnot have been passed without recording satisfaction under Section 5(a) & 5(b)of the Act of 1990, as the case may be. The appellate authority has also notconsidered the aforesaid provisions and the material available on record.
04. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for therespondents / State opposes the prayer by submitting that the petitioner hasbeen found engaged in the criminal activities. As many as four criminal caseshave been registered against the petitioner, therefore, there is sufficient materialagainst him to extern from the aforesaid districts.
05. It is a settled law that order of externment should not have been passed merely on the basis of number of criminal cases. There has to be anevidence to suspend the fundamental right of any person under the provisionsof Section 5(a) & 5(b) of the Act of 1990 as held by the Apex Court andDivision Bench of this Court in number of cases. Out of 06 months, thepetitioner has already undergone two months' externment. There is no materialon record to show that the petitioner has tried to break the law during thisperiod or enter into the districts.
06. Taking into the facts and circumstances in totality, the externmentperiod of 06 months is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitionershall furnish a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) thathe will maintain the law and order and good conduct.
07. Writ Petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.
Ravi
(VIVEK RUSIA)JUDGE