ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under article 226/27 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.1996 (Annexure A. 11) passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur, under section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short the Adhiniyam) directing the petitioner to remove himself from the areas of district Raipur and its contiguous district Durg, Rajnandgaon, Billaspur and Raigarh within a period of 7 days from 16.7.1996 and not to enter or return to said districts for a period of one year, that is upto 16.7.1997, and the order dated 8.8.1996 (Annexure R.7) passed in appeal preferred under section 9 of the Adhiniyam, by the State Government, communicated vide order dated 12 August, 1996 (Annexure A.12). 2. The petitioner is a Journalist and local agent of "Amrit Sandesh" a daily newspaper. The petitioner avers that he made certain complaints against misdeeds of forest and other authorities, therefore, he was being harassed by falsely implicating him in criminal offences in which he was acquitted. Preventive actions under section 107/16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken against the petitioner were set aside by the Revisional Court. The respondents no. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since 1982 like using abusive and filthy language, terrorizing person, by his acts, peace and tranquility is endangered as he uses force and violence. He has reason to believe that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence publicly as they apprehend on their part as regards their safety or their person or property. Therefore, show cause why he should not be removed from Raipur district for a period of one year. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 12.4.1996 (Annexure A.10) denying the allegations and also produced the documents and examined the witnesses in defence. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 9th July 1996 (Annexure A.11) on his satisfaction on the statement of witnesses who were examined in camera at the back of the petitioner, whose names were not disclosed either in the show cause notice or during the course of the enquiry or in the final order, ordered the removal of the petitioner not only from the district Raipur but also from other contiguous districts. 3. 3. Respondents with their return filed photo copies of complaints, rojnamcha entries, statement of the defence witnesses examined by the petitioner in the enquiry and also a complaint dated 14.11.1995 signed by the President, Janpad Panchayat and few persons copy of which was sent to Member of Parliament and M.L.A.s a copy of the First Information Report (Annexure R. 15) lodged on 31.3.1996 at the Police Station Gariyaband on which a case under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also another First Information Report (Annexure R.14) lodged on 25th March, 1996 at Police Station Gariyaband registering a case under section 341, 294 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 4. Shri Awadha Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a peace living person. He being the journalist, brings the misdeeds of officials of various departments in the public and also raises a voice against their illegal and unauthorised acts, therefore, the petitioner is being harassed and is being involved in criminal cases. The prosecution having failed in the said cases, drastic action of removal from district Raipur and four other districts have been taken, which is malafide. Admittedly Rajnandgaon is not a contiguous district. Show cause notice issued under section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam only related to the removal of the petitioner from Raipur district but in the final order the petitioner has been ordered to remove himself not only from district Raipur but also from contiguous districts for a period of one year. There was no material before the District Magistrate, even to form a subjective opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward and to give evidence in public. Neither the names of such witnesses were disclosed nor any witness was examined before the petitioner during the enquiry. The Respondent No. 2 had examined the witnesses at the back of the petitioner before issuance of show cause notice; copies on their statements were neither supplied to the petitioner nor he was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine them. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the prosecution failed due to non-production of witnesses who did not come forward in the trials to give evidence. 5. Shri S. Nagu, Govt. Advocate submitted that the order was passed after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent no. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the prosecution failed due to non-production of witnesses who did not come forward in the trials to give evidence. 5. Shri S. Nagu, Govt. Advocate submitted that the order was passed after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 had sufficient material to believe that because of the involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities the order is essential to maintain law and order, peace and tranquility. The order has been confirmed in appeal. This Court will not examine the legality and propriety of the order as an appellate Court by reappraisal of the material. 6. The State Legislature has enacted the Act for safety of citizens, maintenance of public order and certain other matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to take timely effective preventive action to counteract activities of antisocial elements in cases where the Government is handicapped to maintain law and order, So that peace, tranquility and orderly Government may not be endangered. In the present case action has been taken under Section 5 and not under section 6 of the Act after following the procedure laid down under section 8 of the Act. In the present case action has been taken under Section 5 and not under section 6 of the Act after following the procedure laid down under section 8 of the Act. It would be relevant here to quote section 6 and 8 of the Act which reads thus- S. 5 - Removal of persons about to commit offence Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate - (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property; or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant; the District Magistrate may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant- (a) So as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease; or (b) to remove himself outside the district or any part thereof or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route within such time as the District Magistrate may specify and not to enter or return to the six said district or part thereof or such area and such contiguous districts, or part there of as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself. S.8 - Hearing to be given before order under sections 3, 4, 5 or 6 is passed - (1) Before an order under section 3, 4, 5 or 6 is passed against any person, the District Magistrate shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. (2) If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness produced by him, the District Magistrate shall grant such application and examine such witnesses unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the District Magistracy is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. (3) Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case and such person shall be entitled to appear before the District Magistrate by any legal practitioner for the purpose of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. (4) District Magistrate proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 3, 4, 5 or 6 require such person to appear before him and to execute a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. (5) If the person fails to execute the security bond as required or fails to appear before the District Magistrate during the inquiry, it shall be lawful for the District Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry exparte and thereupon such order, as was proposed to be passed against him, may be passed. 7. A bare look to the order shown that it has not been passed for the activities enumerated in clause (a) and (c) of section 5 of the Adhiniyam but is passed on the ground that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards, the safety of their person and property. Therefore, law and order authorities are not in a position, to take effective preventive action against the petitioner by prosecuting him before the Court of law. To form such an opinion, the respondent after examining the witnesses issued the show cause notice and passed the order after following the procedure prescribed under section 8 of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, law and order authorities are not in a position, to take effective preventive action against the petitioner by prosecuting him before the Court of law. To form such an opinion, the respondent after examining the witnesses issued the show cause notice and passed the order after following the procedure prescribed under section 8 of the Adhiniyam. The District Magistrate can form the opinion on the material placed before him. But the law requires that to form the opinion, the District Magistrate must have a sufficient cause to believe as regards the activities of the person intended to be proceeded at the time when the order is proposed to be made. If such opinion is formed then it cannot be questioned in the Court. But the opinion must be arrived at on the material placed before him that the movement and activities of the person against whom the order is to be made are detrimental to safety of citizens and there is apprehension of their life and property, and for that reasons should be recorded. If the subjective satisfaction is arrived at on the material placed before the District Magistrate after recording reasonings, the Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction. See Vijay Singh v. State of M.P. 1983 J.L.J. 514. The order would only be vitiated when it is not made bonafide or made in an arbitrary manner or it is passed on the matter excluded or there was no material at all and is passed in abuse of the power. See Premchand v. Union of India A.I.R. 1981 SC 613. 8. It is contended before us that no material has been referred in the order that who are the witnesses who are not willing to come forward to give evidence at a place which is open to all against the petitioner by the reasons of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property, on the other hand in all prosecution cases the prosecution witnesses appeared and gave their evidence without any fear or terror. No witness even made any complaint. Therefore, disclosure of the names of witnesses and affording opportunity to cross-examine was necessary. The question was considered by the Supreme Court in case Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 221, a case of analogous provisions, wherein it has observed thus- The only point which Mr. No witness even made any complaint. Therefore, disclosure of the names of witnesses and affording opportunity to cross-examine was necessary. The question was considered by the Supreme Court in case Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 221, a case of analogous provisions, wherein it has observed thus- The only point which Mr. Umrigar attempts to make in regard to the reasonableness of this procedure is that the suspected person is not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against him and on whose evidence the proceedings were started. In our opinion, this by itself would not make the procedure unreasonable having regard to the avowed intention of the legislature in making the enactment. The law is certainly an extraordinary one and has been made only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certain bad characters whose presence in certain areas constitute a menace to the safety of the public residing therein. This object would be wholly defeated if a right to confront or cross-examine these witnesses was given to the suspect. The power to initiate proceedings under the Act has been vested in a very high and responsible officer and he is expected to act with caution and impartiality while discharging his duties under the Act. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahabir Prasad v. State of M.P. 1989 M.P.L.J. 218 following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Gurubachan Singh v. State of Bombay (supra), while considering a case of similar provision contained in section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 observed that witnesses not coming forward to give evidence by reason of apprehension as regards their safety, who were in number 23 examined by the District Magistrate before issuance of show cause notice in the absence of the person against whom the order was passed and who was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine, the order of experiment was legal as based on sufficient material. Therefore, in the present case on the ground urged by the petitioner, the order cannot be said to be illegal. 10. Therefore, in the present case on the ground urged by the petitioner, the order cannot be said to be illegal. 10. However, I find an apparent illegality in the order of removal that the show cause notice was issued for removal of the petitioner from the district of Raipur and not for contiguous districts or part thereof while in the final order, passed by the respondent No. 2 order was not only of the removal of the petitioner for a period of one year from the area of Raipur district but from the contiguous districts and also a district which admittedly was not contiguous. Therefore, the order of removal in such a situation cannot be said to be a bonafide but arbitrary as the respondent no. 2 who was vested with the powers has not acted with caution and has not discharged his duties as a responsible officer. The order so passed of removal from five districts without issuance of show cause notice under section 88 of the Adhiniyam is in abuse of his power to the detriment of the fundamental freedom of the petitioner envisaged under article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, hence is illegal. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the petition is allowed and the order of removal is quashed. Petition allowed