SANDEEP SHOURI @ KAKE SHOURI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order of externment passed against the petitioner on 15-1-2002 by the District Magistrate, Surguja and, the order dated 29-6-2002 passed by the State Government rejecting his appeal.

(2.) IN short, the facts giving rise to the petition are that on 25-7-2000 Superintendent of Police, Surguja forwarded a report to the District Magistrate, Surguja, for initiating proceedings under Section 5 (2) (b) and to take action under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam (in short 'the Adhiniyam') against the petitioner. On receiving the report, the District Magistrate on being satisfied that it was necessary to initiate the said proceedings, registered the same and held an enquiry. During the course of the enquiry, statements of 7 persons were recorded in the presence of the District Prosecution Officer. On a consideration of the material on record, the District Magistrate on 17-10-2001, till which time the enquiry continued, came to record his satisfaction that prima facie a case for suitable action under Section 5 has been made out against the petitioner and accordingly ordered that a notice to show cause in terms of Section 8 (i) of the Adhiniyam be issued to the petitioner. Accordingly such a notice was issued. On receiving the notice, the petitioner filed his show cause and statements of 12 witnesses adduced by him were recorded on various dates. The enquiry, which commenced on 11-8-2000 continued till 15-1-2000 on which date the order of externment was passed.

(3.) THE order of externment is assailed inter alia on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in many of the cases has not been noticed by the Authorities. It was submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding person and the complaints lodged against him were due to ill-will and hence motivated. It was also stated that the orders impugned are not reasoned orders, and, therefore, cannot be sustained. At any rate, it was submitted that restraining the petitioner from entering all the surrounding districts was too harsh and needs to be modified. It was also submitted that since the order visits the petitioner with punishment, adequate reasons ought to have been recorded by the Authority and the failure to do so is sufficient to vitiate the order.