DHARMENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a sitting Corporator of Municipal Corporation, Satna for second consecutive term and is also leading a public life in different capacities. He is also entrusted with the work of disbursement of pension under the "Nirashrit Pension Scheme" in his constituency. A show cause notice under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh (Rajya) Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 was issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2005. He submitted a detailed reply vide Annexure P -4 and 16.1.2006. An application was also submitted seeking transfer of the case on the ground that the petitioner had submitted a memorandum for transfer of Shri Umakant Umrao (repondent No.3) to the then Chief Minister. The prayer was declined. It was stated in the reply that in 25 of the cases referred to in the' recommendation Annexure P -2, the petitioner was already acquitted. The proposed action of extemment was tainted with mala fides and political vengeance. The petitioner is a law abiding respected member of the society and is not involved in any unlawful activity. However the respondent No.3, vide his order dated 6.3.2006, passed an order of extemment of the petitioner under sections 5(b) and 6(a) of the said Act from the district of Satna and surrounding districts for a period of one year. This order is contained in Annexure P -9 which was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition for quashment of the orders of extemment (Annexure P -9) and confirmation by the appellate authority (Annexture P -10].

(2.) IN the return, it has been stated that the City Superintendent of Police had submitted his report that 52 cases of mar -peer, extortion, theft, kidnapping and murder are pending against the petitioner who was " indulged in such offences. Witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner due to his terror. Thus, he is creating a continuing obstruction in the district administration and maintenance of law and order. It has been denied that the District Collector Shri Umakant Umrao has personal prejudice against the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the order of externment has been rightly passed purely in the interest of public and is not tainted with personal prejudice.

(3.) SHRI Soni, learned counsel strongly contended that the petitioner was although already acquitted in number of cases, the effect of such acquittal was not taken into consideration while passing the order of externment. The petitioner has stated on oath and has also substantiated that the various cases described in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Satna dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure P -2) at serial Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7,8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 45 stood terminated in acquittal on various dates. The case at serial No.3 was decided in favour of the petitioner on 17.5.1990. Similarly, the crime case described at serial No.16 terminated in his favour in the year 1995. The cases described at serial Nos. 5, 8, 10, 31 and 33 terminated in favour of the petitioner in the year 1996. Similarly, certain other cases were also decided in favour of the petitioner much before the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 12.9.2005 contained in Annexure P -2. Shri Soni, learned counsel contended that the fact of acquittal in 25 cases was not taken into consideration by the learned District Magistrate while forming an opinion about subjective satisfaction in the matter of externment of the petitioner which amounted to non -application of mind and the order of externment is liable to be quashed.