The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State Chief Secretary to hold a meeting with the Collector/ District Magistrates (DMs) and ask them not to act under political pressure [Shri Antram Awase v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]..Justice Vivek Agarwal passed the order in relation to the decisions being taken by Collectors under MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, the law for security of State and maintenance of public order.“Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. is requested to call a meeting of all the District Magistrates and give them confidence and directions to not to pass orders under political pressure without appreciating the true intent and meaning of the law as contained in the Act of 1990,” the Court ordered..The Court passed the order while dealing with a petition challenging an externment order passed by the District Magistrate of Burhanpur district last year. The externment period was up till January 22 this year.Following an insistence by the petitioner who was externed from Burhanpur and its neighbouring districts, the Court decided the matter on merits on January 20..Justice Agarwal found that offences under the Forest Act were mentioned without having any relevance in the externment order.The Bench also noted that an externment order can be passed only against persons who have been convicted for certain types of offences."The word used is 'If a person has been convicted' - but there is no material on record to show that, in regard to two offences under the Indian Penal Code, petitioner has been convicted. What is mentioned by the District Magistrate is that FIRs have been registered against him. Thus, without there being any conviction merely on the registration of FIR, petitioner could not have been subjected to invocation of Provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and therefore, order of externment is apparently illegal and is set-aside,” it ordered..The single-judge also recorded how the DM misled the Court when asked to show the witness statements which could prove that the presence of the petitioner was a danger to the safety and security or to the public order The DM tried to gloss over his own failure to record statements by misleading the Court by saying that none of the witnesses came forward to record statements, the Bench said.“If this would have been true, than, the District Magistrate would have disclosed the names of such persons who were approached for recording of their statements and they had refused to give their statements then Court could have obtained the report in this behalf, but this attitude of the District Magistrate to gloss over the matter is grossly inappropriate,” it added..Consequently, the Court directed the State to bear the cost of litigation by paying ₹50,000 to the petitioner for the harassment caused to him.State will be free to recover it from the concerned District Magistrate who had passed the order, it added..Advocate Priyal Suryavansh represented the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni represented the State..[Read Judgment]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State Chief Secretary to hold a meeting with the Collector/ District Magistrates (DMs) and ask them not to act under political pressure [Shri Antram Awase v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]..Justice Vivek Agarwal passed the order in relation to the decisions being taken by Collectors under MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, the law for security of State and maintenance of public order.“Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. is requested to call a meeting of all the District Magistrates and give them confidence and directions to not to pass orders under political pressure without appreciating the true intent and meaning of the law as contained in the Act of 1990,” the Court ordered..The Court passed the order while dealing with a petition challenging an externment order passed by the District Magistrate of Burhanpur district last year. The externment period was up till January 22 this year.Following an insistence by the petitioner who was externed from Burhanpur and its neighbouring districts, the Court decided the matter on merits on January 20..Justice Agarwal found that offences under the Forest Act were mentioned without having any relevance in the externment order.The Bench also noted that an externment order can be passed only against persons who have been convicted for certain types of offences."The word used is 'If a person has been convicted' - but there is no material on record to show that, in regard to two offences under the Indian Penal Code, petitioner has been convicted. What is mentioned by the District Magistrate is that FIRs have been registered against him. Thus, without there being any conviction merely on the registration of FIR, petitioner could not have been subjected to invocation of Provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and therefore, order of externment is apparently illegal and is set-aside,” it ordered..The single-judge also recorded how the DM misled the Court when asked to show the witness statements which could prove that the presence of the petitioner was a danger to the safety and security or to the public order The DM tried to gloss over his own failure to record statements by misleading the Court by saying that none of the witnesses came forward to record statements, the Bench said.“If this would have been true, than, the District Magistrate would have disclosed the names of such persons who were approached for recording of their statements and they had refused to give their statements then Court could have obtained the report in this behalf, but this attitude of the District Magistrate to gloss over the matter is grossly inappropriate,” it added..Consequently, the Court directed the State to bear the cost of litigation by paying ₹50,000 to the petitioner for the harassment caused to him.State will be free to recover it from the concerned District Magistrate who had passed the order, it added..Advocate Priyal Suryavansh represented the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni represented the State..[Read Judgment]
