2021 (11) TMI 1092 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - petitioner has been deprived of proper hearing by the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order reveals that the District Magistrate has also made it a ground that the petitioner has not filed the orders of acquittal passed in his favour and has relied upon the cases enumerated by the S.P. in his recommendation and has come to a conclusion that since so many cases have been registered against the petitioner, which shows his involvement in the criminal cases even now. This Court also finds that before passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate has not recorded the statement of any person from the area, who could say that he is afraid to go to police station only on account of the terror or influence exercised by the petitioner. It is apparent that by not providing the petitioner sufficient time to produce the orders of acquittal in the cases in which he was already acquitted, the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated and in such peculiar circumstances, even if the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In the considered opinion of this court, had an opportunity to produce the copies of acquittal orders passed in favour of the petitioner been given to him by the District Magistrate, the result of the outcome could have been different. Whether order of externment cannot be passed in respect of other adjoining district? - HELD THAT - This court is not required to dwell upon the same as the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of externment based on violation of principles of natural justice and lack of proper hearing.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order of externment issued by the District Magistrate, alleging violation of natural justice principles as he was not given a proper hearing.
2. The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that the District Magistrate considered all criminal cases against the petitioner without proper examination of witnesses, solely relying on the Superintendent of Police's report.
3. The petitioner contended that most cases were minor in nature, with acquittals in some, and that he was being targeted due to political vendetta.
4. The petitioner's counsel also argued that the externment order extended beyond the petitioner's operational area, citing a Bombay High Court decision in support.
5. The State's counsel opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the M.P. Rajya Surakhsa Adhiniyam, 1990, and the petition was misconceived for bypassing this remedy.
6. The State's counsel argued that the District Magistrate's decision was based on the multiple criminal cases against the petitioner, justifying the externment order.

Court's Decision:
1. The court examined the criminal cases against the petitioner and noted that none were serious offenses.
2. The court found that the District Magistrate did not allow the petitioner sufficient time to produce acquittal orders, violating principles of natural justice.
3. Due to the violation of natural justice principles, the court deemed the petition under Article 226 maintainable, even if the petitioner had not pursued the appeal remedy.
4. The court concluded that the externment order was to be quashed based on the violation of natural justice, without delving into the issue of externment in adjoining districts.
5. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the externment order dated 17.09.2021 was quashed.