ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner, being aggrieved of his externment from District Sagar and the adjacent Districts for a period of one year from 14.10.2015 by order of District Magistrate, Sagar on 13.10.2015 in exercise of his powers conferred under Sections 3(b) and 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 1990 Act') and its affirmation in Appeal under Section 9 by order dated 18.02.2016, petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Action was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of 1990 Act on the requisition by Superintendent of Police vide memo No. iq0v0@lkxj@jhMj@ftyk cnj@03@14 fnukad 13-02-2014 . The requisition was that the petitioner is indulged in various illegal and other antisocial activities which has led to breach of peace and tranquility in the surroundings creating atmosphere of apprehension in law abiding citizens of the locality preventing them from lodging complaints and tendering evidence thereon. 4. Having satisfied that 14 cases under the provisions of Indian Penal Code under Sections 294, 506,147, 148, 149, 506 B, 452, 323, 307, 324, 427 of Indian Penal Code and under the Scheduled Caste and Section 3 (1)(x) and 3(2)(v) Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 25-B & 25/27 of the Arms Act were registered against the petitioner the District Magistrate caused notice on the petitioner. In reply whereof he stated that he is peace loving and law abiding citizen and that in most of the cases he has been exonerated as no witnesses have supported the prosecution story. 5. The District Magistrate after analysing each case found that the presence of the petitioner in Sagar and in adjacent districts will not be congenial to the public order, peace and tranquilities, accordingly directed his externment by order dated 13.10.2015. Petitioner preferred appeal there-against, which was dismissed on 18.02.2016. 6. Assailing the order of externment and the appellate order, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no credible material before the Magistrate on the basis whereof a definite conclusion could be drawn that movements and acts of the petitioner in any manner is alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. 6. Assailing the order of externment and the appellate order, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no credible material before the Magistrate on the basis whereof a definite conclusion could be drawn that movements and acts of the petitioner in any manner is alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Furthermore, it is urged that, the cases on the basis whereof the District magistrate arrived at a conclusion holding the activities of the petitioner being dangerous were either old matters or the matters wherein the petitioner was already acquitted. On the basis of such matters, it is urged, the petitioner could not have been removed under Adhiniyam, 1990. 7. The respondent on their turn have justified their action of externing the petitioner in the public interest and to avoid untoward incident. Fourteen cases were registered against the petitioner and reported by the Superintendent of Police Sagar of which certain cases are still pending. It is being contended that these remaining cases also have the effect of causing dent to peace and tranquil situation as would led to breach of public peace and security. 8. Fourteen cases were registered against the petitioner and reported by the Superintendent of Police Sagar of which certain cases are still pending. It is being contended that these remaining cases also have the effect of causing dent to peace and tranquil situation as would led to breach of public peace and security. 8. District Magistrate recorded the following findings :- esjs }kjk iqfyl v/kh{kd lkxj ds izfrosnu ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh iqfyl Fkkuk jkgrx<+ ds izfrosnu ,oa lk{kh;ksa ds dFkuksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA iqfyl Fkkuk jkgrx<+ }kjk vukosnd ds }kjk fuEu vijk/k fd;s tkuk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA%& vi% Ø0 87@02 /kkjk 341] 294] 324] 34 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 163@03 /kkjk 341] 323] 294] 506] 34 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 299@07 /kkjk 307] 294] 506] ch] rk0fg0 3@1&10] 3@2&5 ,l0lh0,l0Vh0 ,Dr rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 37@10 /kkjk 452] 294] 506] 427 ch] rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 38@10 /kkjk 25&ch vkElZ ,DV dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 183@12 /kkjk 452] 323] 294 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 04@13 /kkjk 110 tk0QkS0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 26@13 /kkjk 151 tk0QkS0 dk vijk/k ithac) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 35@13 /kkjk 151 tk0QkS0 dk vijk/k ithac) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 428@13 /kkjk 294] 323] 452] 506] 427 rk0fg0 iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 530@13 /kkjk 25@27 vkElZ ,DV vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 30@14 /kkjk 294] 323] 327] 506 rk0fg0 iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 403@13 /kkjk 107] 116@3 tk0QkS0 iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 01@14 /kkjk 110 tk0QkS0 iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA eq>s iqfyl v/kh{kd lkxj ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh ds izfrosnu ls ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd eukst firk jkepj.k lksuh mez 35 o"kZ fuoklh okMZ ua0 13 jkgrx<+ Fkkuk jkgrx<+ ftyk lkxj e0iz0 o"kZ 2002 ls yxkrkj vijk/k djrk vk jgk gSA ;g orZeku esa bruk funZ;h ,oa nq"V izo`fRr dk gS] ekjihV dj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus ds lkFk&lkFk turk ,oa jkgxhjksa ls 'kjkc ihus ds fy, iSls ekaxus dk vkfn gS ftldh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa ij vadq'k yxkus ds fy, le; le; ij izdj.k iathc) fd;s tkdj izfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh Hkh dh xbZ ysfdu vukosnd ds vkpj.kksa esa dksbZ Hkh lq/kkj u gksdj lkekftd }s'k Hkkouk c<+kus ,oa lkEiznkf;drk QSykus esa dksbZ deh ugha vk jgh gSA ftlls jkT; lqj{kk ,oa vke turk dks xaHkhj [krjk iSnk gks x;k gSA bl izdkj blds bu d`R;ksa ls ,slh iw.kZ laHkkouk gS fd ;fn blds fo:) Bksl dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ rks ;g dHkh Hkh lkeiznkf;drk HkM+dk dj xaHkhj fLFkfr iSnk dj nsxkA vukosnd ds fo:) le; le; ij izfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh dh xbZ ysfdu bldk bl ij dksbZ vlj ugha iM+ jgk gSA vr% eSa ,0ds0 flag ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] lkxj vukosnd eukst firk jkepj.k lksuh mez 35 o"kZ fuoklh okMZ ua0 13 jkgrx<+ ftyk lkxj e0iz0 dh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa ij rRdky fu;a=.k djus ds mn~ns'; ls e0iz0 jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1990 dh /kkjk 31&[k ,oa 5&[k] esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vukosnd dks bl vkns'k ls ,d o"kZ dh dkyof/k ds fy, lkxj ftys ,oa lehiorhZ lhek ij yxs gq, ftyksa dh HkkSxksfyd lhekvksa ls fu"dkflr djrk gwWaa rFkk vkns'k nsrk gwa fd vukosnd fcuk fdlh esjs fof/k laxr vkns'k ds lkxj ftys dh lhek ds vanj izos'k ugha djsxkA vxj vukosnd ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa izdj.k py jgsa gks rks mudh isf'k;ksa esa is'kh fnukad ds ,d fnu iwoZ ftys esa mifLFkr gks ldsxkA mifLFkr gksus dh lwpuk lacaf/kr Fkkuk dks nsxk] ijarq is'kh lekfIr ds 06 ?kaVs ds ckn ftyk NksM+ nsxkA 9. Section 3 of 1990 Act provides for : 3. Power to make restriction order.- (1) If a District Magistrate is satisfied with respect to any persons that he is acting or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order and that, in order to prevent him from so acting it is necessary in the interest of the general public to make an order under this Section, the District Magistrate, may make an order,- (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; (b) imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order, in respect of his association or communications with such persons as may be mentioned in the order; (c) prohibiting or restricting the possession or use by him of any such article or articles as may be specified in the order. (2) A restriction order made under sub-section (1) shall remain in operation for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of one year from the date of the order. 10. Section 5 of Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 stipulates :- "5. (2) A restriction order made under sub-section (1) shall remain in operation for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of one year from the date of the order. 10. Section 5 of Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 stipulates :- "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 abatement 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 said district or part thereof or such area and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself." 11. The requirement of law is that there must be clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence and that for removing a person from a District there must exist a reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of offence involving force or violence or in the abatement of any such offence. It is the reach effect and potentiality of overt commission of an offence which lend support to cause reasonable apprehension would be the basis for valid exercise of power by the Authority under these provisions. The antecedents of a person also plays an important role in forming an opinion. It is indeed usually prior events showing tendencies or inclination of a man that an inference is drawn whether he is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance as would cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. 12. The prejudicial act or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximated the point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion arrived as has been held in Wasi Uddin Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Aligarh : AIR 1981 SC 2166 :- "24. The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclination of a man that an inference is drawn whether he is likely in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Of course, such prejudicial conduct or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary." 13. In Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra : AIR 1973 SC 630 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :- "It is true that the provisions of section 56 make a serious inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the larger interests of society. In Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra : AIR 1973 SC 630 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :- "It is true that the provisions of section 56 make a serious inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the larger interests of society. This Court in Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 737 = AIR 1952 SC 221 had upheld the validity of section 27(1) of he City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, which corresponds to section 56 of the Act. Following that decision, the challenge to the constitutionality of section 56 was repelled in 1956 SCR 533 = AIR 1956 SC 585 . We will only add that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied with and that the slender safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the proposed externee." 14. In State of Maharashtra v. Salem Hasan Khan : AIR 1989 SC 1304 , it has been held : "On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Pandarinath Sridhar Rangne-kar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, [1973] 3 SCR 63 where-in a similar plea was taken by the appellant before this Court. It was contended that the failure on the part of the State Government indicated non-application of mind. The appellant had also urged that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were too vague in absence of details to afford him reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Rejecting the argument, this Court held that a full and complete disclosure of particulars, as is requisite in an open prosecution, will frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding. There is a brand of lawless elements in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. There is a brand of lawless elements in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. While dealing with the contention that the State Government was under a duty to give reasons in support of its order dis-missing the appeal, the point was rejected in the following terms :- "Precisely for the reason for which the proposed externee is only entitled to be informed of the general nature of the material allegations, neither the externing authority nor the State Government in appeal can be asked to write a reasoned order in the nature of a judgment." As observed, if the authorities were to discuss the evidence in the case, it would be easy to fix the identity of the witnesses who were unwilling to depose in public against the proposed externee. A reasoned order containing a discussion would probably spark off another round of harassment. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was in error in quashing the order as confirmed by the state Government in appeal." 15. In the case at hand when the test as laid down under Section 3 and Section 5 of 1990 Adhiniyam is made applicable there remains no iota of doubt that the apprehension raised by the District Magistrate is not without a substance or basis as would warrant any interference. The Appellate Authority also after, re-appreciating the entire facts affirmed the findings arrived at by the District Magistrate. There is no perversity in the findings. In view whereof, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.