SUJOY PAUL, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of the District Magistrate dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby he has passed the order of externment against the petitioner under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Appellate order dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P/2) rejecting the appeal is also called in question.
(2.)SHRI T.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised singular contention. By taking this Court to Annexure P/3, it is submitted that these documents are the order sheets of the externment proceeding of the District Magistrate. The order sheet makes it crystal clear that notices were served on the petitioner and without affording any reasonable opportunity, externment order is passed. The said order needs to be interfered with on this score alone. He criticized the appellate order for the same reason.
(3.)MRS . Pachauri supported the order. However, on the basis of record available with her, she could not point out any material to establish that notices were issued by the District Magistrate were ever severed on the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.