Vandana Kasrekar, J. - (1.)The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 08.12.2017 and 24.07.2017 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.)The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Ner, Police Station Shahpur, District Burhanpur. On 13.02.2017, respondent No. 4 has submitted a report before respondent No. 3 stating that the criminal activities of the petitioner continued since 2006. It was alleged that the criminal acts of the petitioner are seriously affecting the law and order and against the petitioner no person is coming forward to lodge a report and give evidence in police station and, therefore, the public tranquility and peace of Burhanpur City is likely to be seriously effected due to the act of the petitioner. Therefore he requested respondent No. 2 to pass an order under Section 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (herein after referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') against the petitioner regarding his externment. Along with the said report, respondent No. 4 has also submitted the list of offences registered against the petitioner which has been committed by the petitioner since 26.11.2006 to 10.02.2017. On the basis of the said report, respondent No. 3 has initiated criminal case against the petitioner and started proceedings against him for externment. In furtherance thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam on 13.02.2017 calling him to show cause about his involvement in the criminal activity since 2006 till date. On the basis of these criminal activities why an order of externment should be passed against him.
(3.)The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice and denied the allegations made in the said show cause notice. He stated that the report submitted by respondent No. 4 is baseless. The offence contained in the report relates to year 2006 and 2017. The police on the basis of false and frivolous facts has registered an offence against the petitioner and most of the criminal cases have already been finally adjudicated. Along with the reply, the petitioner has filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondents neither given any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses nor produced any adverse material to establish the charges against him. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 passed an order of externment dated 24.07.2017 by exercising the powers given under Section 5(b) of the Act from District Burhanpur and contagious Revenue District Khandwa, Khargone, Harda, Badwani and directed him to went out from the aforesaid area. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 after hearing the arguments has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 08.12.2017. Being aggrieved by that orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.