0

If a person is externed only from the local limits of the area in which he is operating or for that purpose the limits of the district in which he is operating, he can certainly carry out his activities from the borders adjoining his area of operation/districts and can have access to all his resources from just across the border specially when the high-speed vehicular connectivity is also available at his disposal: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

The petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of YATINDRA VERMA V. HOME DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY through HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Indore to whom a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2/Commissioner of Police, Indore Division, Indore on 16.3.2022, under Section 8 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 enumerating 10 cases which were registered against him from 2006 to 2021 and also a prohibitory proceeding initiated against him in the year 2022. The petition has been filed on many grounds including that the petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy; the order has been passed beyond the show cause notice, the order is in respect of other districts also only on account of their geographical proximity with Indore, old and stale cases have also been considered. The reply has still not been filed by the State after many opportunities and the counsel for the State has again sought time to file reply. The prayer is denied and the petition is heard finally on the basis of the documents filed on record. Counsel for the respondent, however, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petition itself if premature on account of availability of the statutory remedy of appeal provided u/s.9 of the Act and otherwise also no illegality has been committed by the Commissioner of Police in passing the impugned order.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly reveals that the powers are with the district magistrate to remove person from a particular area/district or districts. This court is of the considered opinion that if a person is externed only from the local limits of the area in which he is operating or for that purpose the limits of the district in which he is operating, he can certainly carry out his activities from the borders adjoining his area of operation/districts and can have access to all his resources from just across the border specially when the high-speed vehicular connectivity is also available at his disposal. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the authority to control his activities/movements carried out from the adjoining districts, outside the district in which he operates or reside. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are not absolute and are amenable to reasonable restrictions which is also the sole purpose of the Act. Hence, it is held that no illegality has been committed by the Commissioner of Police to extern the petitioner from the adjoining districts of Indore as well. So far as the old and stale cases are concerned, it is found that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities since the year 2006 to 2021 and except 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018, in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021 he was consistent in committing the offences as in all these years one or the other offences have been committed by the petitioner and as such it is apparent that he has the propensity of committing offences, and it cannot be said that the old cases committed by the petitioner have lost their relevance. So far as the ground raised in respect of the non-mentioning of the status of criminal cases registered against the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that it is hardly relevant for the purposes of externment. Thus, it is held that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat