Attempt By Mighty State To Curtail Personal Freedom: MP High Court Quashes Collector's 'Cryptic' Externment Order Against Woman, Fines ₹25K
Quashing a Collector's externment order prohibiting a woman from entering the boundaries of district Umariya and other neighbouring districts for a year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court termed it as "cryptic" observing that it appeared to have been passed due to "other compulsions" rather than the requirements of law. In doing so the court quashed the order observing that it appeared to be...
Quashing a Collector's externment order prohibiting a woman from entering the boundaries of district Umariya and other neighbouring districts for a year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court termed it as "cryptic" observing that it appeared to have been passed due to "other compulsions" rather than the requirements of law.
In doing so the court quashed the order observing that it appeared to be an attempt by the "mighty State to curtail the personal freedom of an individual". The court further imposed Rs. 25,000 cost on the State to be paid to the woman by the Collector.
Referring to provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam which provides conditions required for removal of a person, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed:
“Thus, it is evident that Collector, Umariya passed an order dehors the requirements of Section 5(b) of Adhiniyam of 1990. It appears that the order of externment has been passed merely on certain other compulsions than the requirements of law. Evidence of Madan Lal Maravi is crystal clear. It does not inspire confidence to existence of any material so to fulfill the requirements of Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Adhiniyam of 1990".
"Therefore, both the orders dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Umariya and dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol, being cryptic and arbitrary and appearing to be an attempt on behalf the mighty State to curtail the personal freedom of an individual, are hereby quashed. Respondent-State shall bear the cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) which will be payable to the petitioner by the Collector, Umariya. Let this cost be paid to the petitioner within 7 days from the date of communication of this order," the court added.
Background
The petitioner had moved the high court being aggrieved by order passed by the Collector whereby the petitioner was directed to be externed from the boundaries of District Umariya and the neighbouring districts for one year. The said order was thereafter, affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that only a list of 6 cases has been shown to be pending against the petitioner out of which two of the cases are under Section 110(Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) Cr.P.C., two cases under Sections 294(Obscene acts and songs), 323(Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation), 34(common intention) of IPC and two cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act. However, she has not been convicted in any of the cases.
The Counsel for State submitted that looking into the criminal activities of the petitioner, externment order was passed after considering Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
Findings
After hearing the parties, the Court referred to Section 5 of the Adhiniyam which provides for removal of persons about to commit offence and inferred that as per the requirement of Section 5(a) the movements or acts of any person should cause "alarm, danger or harm to person or property". Further, Section 5(b) provides that there should be reasonable grounds of engagement of such person in commission of an offence mentioned therein and the District Magistrate should form an opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part.
The Court also noted that the cross-examination of the sole witness SHO Madan Lal Maravi whose statements were relied upon by the State's Counsel revealed that in one of the cases the petitioner was impleaded as an accused on the basis of statements of co-accused Ramesh Singh Senger however no contraband substance was seized from her.
The witness also admitted that in Pali region, no one gave a statement that the public or the youth or their parents or their relatives are under such a grievous threat or that there will be problem to their existence, if petitioner is allowed to remain free. Furthermore, no report was received against the petitioner of causing any dispute with the police personnel and no such case was registered against the petitioner which may be against the society, organization or the community.
Thus, the Court concluded that Collector, Umariya passed an order "de-hors" the requirements of law. It further said it was "unfortunate" that even the concerned Divisional Commissioner, had "chosen to not to apply her mind to the fact and circumstances of the case and has merely countersigned an order of rejection of appeal, without application of mind”.
Expressing concern the court said, "This is a serious matter. Divisional Commissioners are supposed to apply their mind when appeals are filed before them under the provisions of any Act. They cannot be allowed to act as a post office. Perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-9) passed by the Divisional Commissioner reveals that there is absolutely no appreciation of either the legal provisions contained in Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Adhiniyam of 1990, nor the material which was available on record, especially, the prosecution evidence in the form of statements of Madan Lal Maravi, SHO".
The high court thus quashed both the orders and allowed the plea.
Case Title: Smt. Munni @ Madhuri Tiwari Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 3428 Of 2025