Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 696 (MP)

Nandu @ Santosh Panchwani v. State of M. P.

2009-06-17

K.K.LAHOTI, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 22.4.2009 in W.P. No. 1793/09 by which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, challenging the show-cause notice issued to the appellant for his externment under Section 5,6 and 12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted: (i) That, on similar ground, earlier notice Annexure PI2 was issued and an order was passed by the Collector on 15.12.2003 externing the appellant from District Seoni and adjoining districts. Against the order dated 15.12.2003, appellant filed an appeal before the State Government. The State Government vide order Annexure P/3 dated 4.3.2004 set aside the order of externment and now on similar ground, another show-cause notice Annexure P/l has been issued. It is submitted that the District Magistrate, Seoni was having no jurisdiction to issue such show-cause notice Annexure P/l dated 2.1.2009 on the similar ground on which earlier proceedings were set aside by the State Government. (ii) That, merely registration of 5 new cases after the earlier order were not sufficient to initiate proceedings against the appellant for externment. (iii) That now the appellant has been elected as Vice-President, Nagar Palika, Seoni. On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that learned Single Judge considered the case on merits and found that on additional ground, notice Annexure P/l was issued. The District Magistrate has issued only a show-cause notice and appellant is having opportunity to submit reply to show-cause notice and only after consideration of the reply to show-cause notice, the matter will be decided by the District Magistrate. The order is under challenge in the petition. 4. It is a settled law that against a show-cause notice, ordinarily this Court should not entertain writ petition until and unless it is a case of issuance of the show-cause notice without jurisdiction or nullity. (See. Special Director and another v. Ghulam Ghouse AIR 2004 SC 1467 and Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC) 327 . 5. (See. Special Director and another v. Ghulam Ghouse AIR 2004 SC 1467 and Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC) 327 . 5. In the present case, only contention of the appellant is that on the similar grounds on which earlier proceedings were initiated, fresh proceedings are again initiated which are without jurisdiction. From the perusal of the show-cause notice Annexure P/l and earlier show-cause notice, we find that on fresh and additional ground, this show-cause notice Annexure P/l has been issued. After setting aside the earlier order by the State Government, appellant was found involved in as many as 5 criminal cases and taking cognizance of this fact and also antecedents of the appellant, notice has been issued, so at this stage, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate was having no material or fresh cause of action of issuance of the show-cause notice. So far as jurisdiction of the District Magistrate is concerned, he is visited with the power to initiate proceedings of externment under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. 6. Another contention of the appellant is that merely registration of 5 new cases after completion of earlier proceedings was not sufficient for initiation of proceedings for externment is concerned, it is the District Magistrate who has to record his own satisfaction, after considering the merits of the case and in this regard at this juncture it would not be appropriate to express any opinion by this Court. The appellant is free to submit his reply to the show-cause notice, if already not submitted, then he shall get an opportunity of hearing before the District Magistrate to show whether· there exists sufficient ground or reason for externment and only after hearing the appellant, the District Magistrate would pass an appropriate order. 7. So far as contention of the appellant that the appellant has been elected as Vice-President of the Municipal Council, Seoni is concerned, on being raised a query, it is stated by the learned counsel for appellant that this fact has occurred after issuance of the show-cause notice. Annexure P/l dated 2.1.2009. The appellant may raise this contention also before the District Magistrate who shall consider the effect of this event, while considering the matter on merits. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.