Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1031 (MP)

Balli v. State of M. P.

2014-08-19

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rohit Arya, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to order dated 28/03/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Magistrate, Gwalior modifying the order dated 31/10/2013 (Annexure P/2) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that a report from the office of Police Superintendent, Gwalior alongwith reports of SHO, Police Station Karhiya and ASI, Police Station Karhiya was received by the District Magistrate that petitioner resident of area under police station Karhiya is involved in many a criminal activities of the nature of committing assault, hurling abuses, issuing threat to murder, causing terror and making tension in locality, in possession of illegal weapon etc. etc. Due to such anti social activities of the petitioner, there is tension in the area and general public is scared of his present. Details of various crimes registered against him were also communicated. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26/10/2013 under Section 8(1) of M.P. State Security Act, 1990 to show cause as to why in view of aforesaid crimes registered against the petitioner, he be not externed from district Gwalior and neighbouring districts Bhind, Datia, Morena and Shivpuri for a period of one year. Petitioner was also heard on dates fixed by the authority. Learned Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, reached the conclusion that there is no justification for issuing the order of externment in relation to the petitioner, though he has found that petitioner has been subjected to restrain orders in the past and during the period 1996 to 2012, 9 criminal cases were registered against him for the offences related to assault, hurling abuses, custody of illegal weapons, threat to people etc and S.P., Gwalior has recommended for issuing externment order against the petitioner looking to his activities in the area and tension of terror prevailing among the people of area, in order to restore peace and maintenance of law and order. However, the Additional District Magistrate has justified his order on the premise that after 2009 during the period of three years only one criminal case is registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 50/12 and therefore, under such circumstances externment order cannot be passed against the petitioner. 3. However, the Additional District Magistrate has justified his order on the premise that after 2009 during the period of three years only one criminal case is registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 50/12 and therefore, under such circumstances externment order cannot be passed against the petitioner. 3. On appeal at the instance of State, though District Magistrate has confirmed the order passed by Additional District Magistrate; however, put a condition thereto that petitioner shall mark his attendance in concerned police station on 1st and 15th day of every month, looking to the track record of the petitioner as regards his involvement in criminal activities in the past. This condition has been imposed as a precautionary measure to ensure that petitioner is not involved in any anti social activity and commission of crime involving force and violence causing threat to the life and liberty of the people of society. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once Additional District Magistrate and District Magistrate have passed order finding no justification for externment of the petitioner for one year from District Gwalior and neighbouring districts, District Magistrate has fallen in error having put a condition on petitioner to mark his presence on 1st and 15th of every month in the concerned police station for a period of one year. The aforesaid unreasonable condition has been imposed on the petitioner in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid Act has been enacted with the aim and object to provide the security of the State, maintenance of public order and certain other matters connected therewith. 6. Section 3 (1) (a) of the State Security Act reads as under:- ""3. Power to make restriction order.-(1)....... (a) requiring him to notify movements or to report himself or both to notify his movements and report himself in such manner at such times and to such authority or persons as may be specified in the order;" 7. 6. Section 3 (1) (a) of the State Security Act reads as under:- ""3. Power to make restriction order.-(1)....... (a) requiring him to notify movements or to report himself or both to notify his movements and report himself in such manner at such times and to such authority or persons as may be specified in the order;" 7. A bare perusal thereof makes it clear that District Magistrate in order to ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility in the society free from any anti social activities, while considering the issue of externment of petitioner of criminal background though has confirmed the order but at the same time keeping in mind past criminal record and the object of aforesaid provisions passed the impugned order as a regulatory measure to keep check on the activities of the petitioner. Regulatory measures cannot be termed as in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the impugned order, petition sans merits, is hereby dismissed.