Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition challenging an externment issued by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur, under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, a single-judge bench of Vivek Agarwal, J., held that the externment orders issued against the petitioner were illegal, passed without authority, and failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on the State for the harassment caused to the petitioner.
In the instant matter, the petitioner challenged an externment order dated 23-01-2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur, under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The order barred the petitioner from entering Burhanpur and neighboring districts for one year, citing his alleged involvement in 11 Forest Act offences between 2018 and 2023 and two IPC cases in 2019 and 2022.
The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate acted beyond his authority, was influenced by extraneous considerations, and failed to comply with the requirements of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The petitioner claimed that the externment order was based on extraneous considerations, lacked supporting evidence, and violated the law. It was contended that the petitioner was being prosecuted for reasons unrelated to law and procedure.
However, the respondent contended that the two IPC cases (2019 and 2022) fall within Chapter XII of the IPC, which justifies the externment order under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. It was argued that the witness statements were not recorded because the petitioner operated in a tribal-dominated area where no one came forward due to fear or unwillingness.
The Court stated that the offences under the Forest Act are not included under Section 6 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The Court noted that Section 6 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam requires conviction for offences, but the petitioner had only FIRs registered against him, with no convictions.
The Court noted that the District Magistrate failed to provide evidence of public danger or witness statements, which undermined the order. The Court held that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind, and deemed the appellate order by the Divisional Commissioner, mechanical and equally flawed.
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the externment orders by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner’s appellate order. The Court directed the State to bear the costs of Rs. 50,000 for the petitioner’s harassment, with liberty to recover it from the concerned District Magistrate. The Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to convene a meeting with District Magistrates to prevent arbitrary and politically influenced decisions in the future.
[Anantram Awase v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 37725 of 2024, Decided on 20-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Priyal Suryavanshi, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Yash Soni – Dy. Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondents
