Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes 25K Cost On State Over 'Cryptic' Externment Order

While quashing a 'cryptic' externment order passed by District Magistrate, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to pay a cost of Rs 25,000 to the petitioner who was externed from the district of Chhindwara and neighbouring districts for a period of three months.The court termed the impugned order as cryptic and that it has been passed in an arbitrary and illegal manner as the District Magistrate did not consider the fact that till date there was no conviction against the petitioner.A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “It is evident that Collector/District Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts of the case and without recording a finding that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Even otherwise the District Magistrate has not seen which is the requirement of Section 6 before exercising his authority that there should have been some conviction against the petitioner. But admittedly till date there is no conviction against the petitioner. The Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur affirmed the order of externment and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without even adverting to the provisions contained in Section 5-B of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and, therefore, both the orders being cryptic and having been passed in an arbitrary and illegal manner cannot be given a seal of approval.”The present petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Chhindwara whereby recording a finding that there were 14 cases pending against the petitioner under various provisions of the IPC and Gambling Act and 3 cases under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C., the Collector passed an order of externment from the district of Chhindwara and neighbouring districts for a period of three months.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cases start from 2008 till 2023 and out of the seventeen cases, three cases were under Section 110 of the CrPC (Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) and out of the remaining 14 cases, five cases were under Gambling Act. It was submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in multiple cases registered under the IPC. Further, in respect of cases under the Gambling Act, the petitioner had been only charged with minor fines but District Magistrate did not take cognizance of these facts and with a view to show a long list of cases against the petitioner extracted even those cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted or only fined. Thus, it was submitted that District Magistrate without application of mind passed impugned order of externment and there is no order of conviction.The counsel for the State submitted that another FIR was registered against the petitioner on March 25, 2024. However, the FIR though registered prior of the passing of the order by District Magistrate on October 30, 2024, had not been mentioned in the impugned order. It was further submitted that Sarpanch had made a complaint against the petitioner. However, from the record available with him no statement of any of the witnesses had been recorded to fulfil the requirement of Section 5(b) MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (Removal of persons about to commit offence).Thus, the court concluded that the District Magistrate had passed the impugned order of externment without appreciating the facts of the case and without recording a finding that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension. The District Magistrate also failed to consider the fact that till date there had been no conviction against the petitioner in any case.The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate was quashed and liberty and freedom of the petitioner was hence, restored.The court also directed the state to pay Rs 25,000/- in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque by the State or RTGS in his account.Case Title: Bhura Kaurav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors, WRIT PETITION No. 41391 Of 2024Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 41Click here to Read/Download Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes 25K Cost On State Over 'Cryptic' Externment Order

Anukriti Mishra