Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1117 (MP)

Shiv Mohare v. State of M. P.

2022-09-12

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 17.2.2022 passed by learned District Magistrate, Balaghat invoking the provision of section 5(B) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 externing the petitioner Shiv Mohare s/o Nanhu Mohare from the revenue boundaries of the District Balaghat and the neighbouring Districts of Seoni, Mandla, Dindori for a period of one year on twin grounds namely; that the respondents did not supply any documents to the petitioner and acted in a hasty manner similarly statement of the SHO was recorded behind the back of the petitioner and copy was never supplied to the petitioner, thirdly, all the materials including the statement of the witnesses examined was not supplied to the petitioner which is in violation of the law laid down by this High Court in case of Ravindra Singh Sekharwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 SCC Online 716. 2. It is also submitted that conditions of section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam are not satisfied, therefore, externment is liable to be quashed in light of the law laid down by this High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Patel, v. State of M.P. and Others, (2009) 4 MPLJ, 434. 3. Learned counsel for the State, in his turn, submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there are provisions contained in section 9 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam which provides for appeal. It provides that if any person is aggrieved of an order under sections 3, 4, 5 or 6 made by the District Magistrate or any other Officer specifically empowered under section 13 may appeal to the State Government within thirty days from the date of such order, which appeal shall be decided as far as possible within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal. It is submitted that in view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy, present petition is not maintainable. 4. It is also submitted that petitioner has a long criminal history. 5. I have perused copy of order-sheets of the proceedings before the Court of District Magistrate, Balaghat which reveals that show cause notice was issued on 2.12.2021, petitioner was present on 9.12.2021 along with his counsel had sought time to file reply, he was granted time to file reply. It is also submitted that petitioner has a long criminal history. 5. I have perused copy of order-sheets of the proceedings before the Court of District Magistrate, Balaghat which reveals that show cause notice was issued on 2.12.2021, petitioner was present on 9.12.2021 along with his counsel had sought time to file reply, he was granted time to file reply. On 13.12.2021, wrongly mentioned as 19.9.2021, reply was filed and case was fixed for defence evidence. On 16.12.2021, petitioner along with his counsel was present defence witness Sanyog Kochar and Trilok Bambure were present, their statements were recorded and case was listed for arguments. On 23.12.2021, time was sought by the petitioner and his counsel to file written submissions. Date was fixed as 27.12.2021. 6. On 27.12.2021 again written submissions were not filed, therefore, case was fixed for orders and case was fixed for on 6.1.2022. On 6.1.2022, petitioner was present but presiding officer was not available, therefore, date was fixed as 13.1.2022. On 13.1.2022 again due to non-availability of Presiding Officer case was fixed for 17.1.2022. Similarly, dates were adjourned on 17.1.2022, 27.1.2022 and 3.2.2022. On 17.2.2022, impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate. Order-sheet reveals that none of the grounds as have been taken here in this writ petition seeking statements of the SHO or any other Officer were not raised before the District Magistrate and for the first time these grounds have been raised which cannot be accepted to be bonafide. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. In view of the availability of the statutory remedy of filing appeal, petitioner is relegated to avail statutory remedy of appeal as petitioner has not demonstrated that as to how said remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. 8. It is directed that in case petitioner files appeal within 15 days from today then appellate the Authority without adverting to the aspect of limitation shall decide the appeal on on its own merits. 9. In above terms, this petition is disposed of.