KANKAR MUJARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Kankar Mujare claiming to be social and political worker and a student leader feels aggrieved by the order of externment dated 17-4-1984 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-18) as affirmed by the appellate order dated 28-7-1984 (Annexure R.4) passed by respondent No.1 and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the same, by filing this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It appears that earlier proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the M.P. Maintenance of Public Order Adhiniyam, 1965 but before those proceedings could conclude the said Act was replaced by M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As a result of the repeal of the 1965 Act earlier proceedings were dropped and fresh proceedings were started under the Act. A show cause notice dated 15-4-1982 (Annexure-6) was served on the petitioner requiring his explanation on incidents stated therein and also to show cause why an order under S.12 of the Act be not passed against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice on 7-6-1982 (Annexure-7) denying the charges and alleging mala fide and political rivalry against him. The petitioner also submitted a list of 23 witnesses whom he wanted to examine in his defence. On receipt of this reply the following order was passed by the respondent No.2 in the order sheet of the case :- This order sheet would show that though the petitioner was to examine 10 witnesses only no reason for such an order was stated. Order-sheets further show that on next date i.e. 22-6-1982 the petitioner could not examine witnesses as his Advocate had fallen sick. On that date, however, the A.P.P. appeared against the petitioner, filed documents and prayed for examination of a few witnesses which was allowed. Witnesses against the petitioner were examined on 6-7-1982 and 20-11-1982. On 20-11-1982 the respondent District Magistrate felt the necessity of issuing an additional show cause notice which was done on 4-12-1982 vide Annexure-8. On 22-12-1982 the petitioner prayed for certain documents and also the copies of statements of witnesses. This request was turned, down on 22-12-1982 on the ground that it was not necessary to disclose the source of information. On 4-1-1983 the petitioner was directed to keep his 3 witnesses present on the next date of hearing i.e. 17-1-1983. It appears that the petitioner paid P.F. for examination of the 3 witnesses and two of them were actually served. In spite of it, none of the 3 witnesses were present in the Court. The petitioner, therefore, made a request for issuance of fresh process, which was refused by order dated 17-1-1983, passed in the order sheet itself. This order-sheet does not contain any reason why issuance of fresh process was refused. However, on that date witnesses mentioned at serial Nos.1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13 were considered unnecessary and their examination was not permitted on the ground that they live at places like Delhi, Bhopal and Nagpur and their examination was likely to cause delay. The case was thereafter fixed for evidence on 3-2-1983. On 3-2-1983 the petitioner was directed to pay p.f. within 3 days and the case was adjourned to 14-2-83. Surprisingly on that date the A.P.P. examined 2 more witnesses and expressed his desire to examine 2 further witnesses which was permitted. The proceedings, thereafter, continued on 21-3-1983 and 13-4-1983. On 2-5-1983 the petitioner was directed to keep his 3 witnesses present in accordance with earlier order. On 18-5-83 the petitioner examined 2 witnesses and was directed to keep 2 more witnesses present on 31-5-1983. On 31-5-1983 an application for adjournment was given on behalf of the petitioner as he had fallen sick. A medical certificate was also filed. In spite of it his defence was closed. The order-sheet dated 31-5-1983 does not show whether his application for adjournment was accepted or not. After this date of hearing the Presiding Officer appears to have been transferred and hence proceedings were adjourned from time to time. On 19-10-1983 when the new incumbent had taken the charge of the office the case was taken up for hearing when P.P. sought permission to examine witnesses in support of some additional complaints, which was again permitted. The witnesses for the prosecution were ultimately examined on 1-2-1984 and fresh show cause notice was directed to be issued against the petitioner. This show cause notice was issued on 2-2-1984 I Annexure-9). The petitioner submitted his reply on 24-2-1984 (Annexure-10). He also submitted a list of 15 witnesses whom he wanted to examine in support of his defence (Annexure P-11). On 2-3-1984 when the case was taken up the petitioner's counsel wanted to examine witnesses which was granted and the case was adjourned to 15-3-1984. On 15-3-1984 the petitioner examined 3 witnesses and prayed for time for examination of more witnesses which was refused and the case was closed for arguments. After the arguments, the impugned order was passed. The impugned order has the effect of externing the petitioner from Balaghat and the adjoining districts of Seoni, Mandia, Rajnandgaon, Bhandara and Nagpur from the date of this order. It may be mentioned that Bhandara and Nagpur are districts of Maharashtra and hence beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. The petitioner, thereafter, appears to have filed an appeal and also prayed for stay of the order. The stay was refused on 17-5-1984, since the appeal remained pending. The present, petition was filed in June, 1984. During the pendency of the petition the appeal was decided by the respondent State confirming the externment order but by deleting Bhandara and Nagpur districts from the same.

(3.) The impugned orders are challenged mainly on the following 3 grounds (1) that the petitioner had been denied the opportunity of examining witnesses as available to him under section 15(2) of the Act and hence the impugned order is bad; (2) the petitioner was denied copies of documents and hence had no reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation regarding the charges, and (3) the impugned orders are politically motivated. Shri Tamaskar, learned Deputy Advocate General denied the aforesaid allegations and submitted that the petitioner had full opportunity of examining witnesses, law does not require copies of documents to be given, that denial is protected under S.26 of the Act and that there is no factual base for allegation of political rivalry.