ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order of externment dated 22.2.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Mandsaur and affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 5.6.2017 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner is externed from the District Mandsaur for a period of one year; from 22.2.2017 to 21.2.2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though earlier in the years 2009 and 2014, the petitioner was externed for one year each from District Mandsaur but, in-between the second and the present externment order only one case has been registered against him which is mentioned at S.No.22 in the list, quoted below:- ØaŒ Fkkuk viŒ ØaŒ /kkjk 22 dksrokyh eanlkSj 222@16 323] 294] 506] 34 HkkŒnŒfoŒ As such, the opinion formed by the respondents with reference to section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh State Security Adhiniyam, 1990 (For short, 'the Adhiniyam, 1990') is based on insufficient material, muchless, relevant material justifying externment order. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State's counsel relying upon the averments made in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit quoted below: ^^3- ;g fd mDr ds laca/k esa mÙkjnkrk@izR;FkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ tkfgn [kku 40 o"kZ dk O;fDr gksdj o"kZ 1991 ls fujarj vkijkf/kd xfrfofèk;ksa esa layXu gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ dk bruk vkard gS fd vke ukxfjd blds fo#) izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls Fkkus esa f'kdk;r djus ls Mjrk gSA vkjksih ds fo#) le;≤ ij vijk/k iathc) dj izdj.k U;k;ky; esa is'k fd, x, gSa] fdUrq ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vkpj.k esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha vk;k gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ dks dbZ ckj le>kbZ'k Hkh nh xbZ] fdUrq mlds vkpj.k esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha gqvkA ;kfpdkdrkZ dh gR;k] gR;k dk iz;kl] ywV] cykRdkj] cyok] voS/k olwyh bR;kfn xaHkhj vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIrrk jgh gSA fdUrq ;kfpdkdrkZ dk {ks= esa vkrad gksus ls mlds fo#) dksbZ vke ukxfjd lk{; nsus ugha vkrk gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls ;kfpdkdrkZ vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa nks"keqDr gks tkrk gSA vr% iqfyl v/kh{kd] eanlkSj ds }kjk ,d izfrosnu fnukad 7-2-2017 dks ftyk naMkf/kdkjh egksn; ds le{k bl vk'k; dk izsf"kr fd;k x;k fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks mldh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIrrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ftys dh lhekvksa ls ckgj Hkstk tkuk vko';d gSA mDr izfrosnu dh izfr vuqyXud vkj&1 ij vafdr gksdj lkFk izLrqr gSA izfrosnu ds lkFk gh ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ Hkh Hkstk x;k FkkA mDr vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ ls Li"V gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ fujarj o"kZ 1991 ls vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa layXu jgk gS vkSj mlds fo#) o"kZ 2009 esa Hkh ftyk cnj vkns'k tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlds mijkar Hkh ;kfpdkdrkZ us lkoZtfud] |wr vf/kfu;e rFkk vU; xaHkhj vijk/k dkfjr fd, gSaA mDr vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ dh izfr vuqyXud vkj&2 ij vafdr gksdj lkFk izLrqr gSA** The fact that because of threat perception posed by the petitioner in the past as the witnesses were not forthcoming in criminal cases and the petitioner was acquitted for want of evidence. 4. It is submitted by her that there has been increase in criminal activities even prior to and subsequent to the first externment order since the year 1991 till 2016 as almost 24 cases of different nature have been registered against the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by her that there has been increase in criminal activities even prior to and subsequent to the first externment order since the year 1991 till 2016 as almost 24 cases of different nature have been registered against the petitioner. Even after second externment order in the year 2014, the petitioner's criminal activities have not come an end instead, he is involved in cases of assault and disturbance of public order, viz., voluntarily causing hurt, sale of obscene books, etc., criminal intimidation and threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Under such circumstances, petitioner's further continuance in the district was found to be serious threat to the public order and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed by which externed him from the district for a period of one year. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Law as regards the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is well settled. The requirements for removal of a person from the district as contemplated under section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 have to be fulfilled for justifying the externment order. 7. In the instant case, this Court is of the firm opinion that only relevant material has been considered by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order of externment with prime object of social order/public order in the district. Hence, no exception thereto can be taken. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. and others [ 2009(4) MPLJ 434 ], which addressed and discussed the conditions under section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990, quoted below : "11. In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned order only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and because of this there is fear and terror in the public and has not recorded any clear opinion on the basis of materials, that in his opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property. In most of the cases, Challans have been filed by the Police in Court obviously after examination of the witnesses under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and the cases are pending in the Court. There is no reference in the order of District Magistrate that witnesses named in the Challans filed by the Police are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner in Court. Hence, in the absence of any existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a reason of apprehension to danger to their person or property to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate by merely repeating the language of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990." 8. In the counter-affidavit on record, there is no specific averment regarding threat to the witnesses named in the Challans filed by the Police or not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner although, offence under sections 323, 292 and 506 read with 34 IPC is registered and pending trial. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the period of externment can be reduced to 10 (ten) months from 12 (twelve) months. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order of externment and affirmed by the appellate authority is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall stand externed till expiry of 31.12.2017. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.