JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 6/03/19 contained in Annexure P/1. By the said order, the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur has confirmed the order passed by District Magistrate, Seoni dated 12/11/18 passed in District Externment Criminal Case No.61/2018. 2. Short facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, Seoni has initiated proceedings under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 against the petitioner on basis of the report presented before him on 26/07/18. As many as 11 cases were registered against the petitioner from 2011 to 2018. Out of 11 cases registered against the petitioner, 5 cases were in respect of gambling act and six cases were proceedings which were initiated under Sections 107 & 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has filed written reply to the notice on 6/10/18. It is stated by the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in the case. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been convicted and sentenced for grievous offences punishable more than seven years and further no offences have been registered against the petitioner under Chapter 12, 16, 17 or under Section 506 or 509 of Indian Penal Code. False case has been made against the petitioner under the Gambling Act. No proceedings against him can be initiated under Sections 5(b) and 6(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the prayer was made to reject the complaint made by Superintendent of Police against the petitioner under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Petitioner was given chance to lead defence evidence and he has produced three witnesses, namely, Jaikumar Gajbhiye, Thagram Invati and Shamim. It was also averred by the petitioner that he is only the bread earner of the family. The District Magistrate, Seoni after considering the documents and complaint filed by the Police and also taking into consideration the defence evidence has recorded a finding that the petitioner is continuously involved in the offences punishable under the Gambling Act since 2010-2011 and he has been punished under Section 4 of the Gambling Act pertaining to Crime Nos.211/17,104/18, 132/18. This shows that petitioner has been convicted thrice within a period of two years. This shows that petitioner has been convicted thrice within a period of two years. The District magistrate was satisfied that there is sufficient and reasonable evidence available for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 6(C) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Petitioner was externed from the district of Seoni, Chhindwara, Narsinghpur, Jabalpur, Balaghat and Mandla for a period of one year under Section 5(b) and Section 6(c) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. 4. The order passed by the District Magistrate dated 12/11/18 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. The Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Collector so far as it has been passed under Section 6(c) of Adhiniyam of 1990. The Commissioner has not set aside the externment order under Section 5(b) but has confirmed the order under Section 6(c) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,1990. 5. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating therein that opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not given to the petitioner. The police witnesses were not produced to support the case under Section 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The order has been passed on the basis of the old and stale cases. The past activities must have a nexus to the present activity of the petitioner and on the basis of old and same material the order of externment could not be passed. There was no subjective satisfaction of the authority and the offences under Sections 107, 110, 116, 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are of not such nature to call for externment of the petitioner. Number of judgments have been quoted by the petitioner showing that the order is bad in law. 6. The District magistrate has wrongly passed an order of externment under Section 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. No evidence is available against the petitioner that he is engaged or about to be engaged in commission of the offence involving force or violence punishable under Chapter 12, Chapter 16 or Chapter 17 or under Sections 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence available on record to show that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner. There is no evidence available on record to show that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner. In absence of such evidence on record, the Collector could not have passed an order of externment with the aid of Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,1990. 7. The next question is whether the District Magistrate could have passed an order under Section 6(c) of externment of the petitioner under the Adhiniyam of 1990 and whether the Commissioner has rightly affirmed the order of externment under Section 6(c) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. As per Section 6(c) of Madhya Pradesh Rajesh Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990, if a person has been convicted thrice of an offence within a period of three years under Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 in the state of Madhya Pradesh then the District Magistrate if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in commission of an offence similar to that of which he has been convicted, direct such person to be removed outside the district or part thereof or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof and within such time the District Magistrate may order not to enter or return the district. 8. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that the requirement of Section 6(c) is not only conviction under Public Gambling Act thrice within period of three years but further satisfaction of the District Magistrate that he is again likely to engage in similar offence. The District Magistrate has arrived at a finding that the petitioner has been convicted thrice within a period of three years and his conduct has not been improved. The District Magistrate further held that the petitioner is likely to engage in similar kind of offence. On the basis of such finding, The District Magistrate has passed the order of externment. The said order has also been affirmed by the Commissioner. Petitioner has not denied the fact that he has not been convicted thrice within period of three years under Public Gambling Act. Petitioner has not filed any application to show that he wanted to cross examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution. The said order has also been affirmed by the Commissioner. Petitioner has not denied the fact that he has not been convicted thrice within period of three years under Public Gambling Act. Petitioner has not filed any application to show that he wanted to cross examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution. Petitioner was given opportunity by issuing show cause notice and he has also filed a written reply. Along with show cause notice, the petitioner was also provided with the report of Superintendent of Police and copies of documents filed in support of such complaint. He was also permitted to lead defence evidence in the case. Petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing as per Section 8 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner suffer from any illegality or perversity. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.