Plea challenging proceedings for externment dismissed

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 03 May 2017 10:48:26


Legal Correspondent,

A SINGLE bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla has dismissed petition filed by Bindeshwari Patel challenging proceedings for externment under provision of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been initiated. Single bench in its order said that it does not find any case for interference against the show case notice.

The petitioner has already filed a reply and preliminary objection to the show cause notice, it goes without saying that the authority, District Magistrate, Katni will take into consideration reply and preliminary objection before passing any order on the show cause notice and will decide the same in accordance with the law. With aforesaid observation, the present petition is dismissed. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the show cause notice dated on March 30, 2017, issued to respondent District Magistrate, Katni, whereby proceedings for externment under provision of MP Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been initiated.


Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings have been initiated on the basis of some criminal cases which were taken into consideration by respondent while passing an order of externment on January 4, 2016, whereby the petitioner was externed for one month from the date of the order from Katni and its adjoining district. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner had participated in the protest against transfer of the earlier Superintendent of Police, Katni and therefore authorities are biased and politically influenced.


Upon perusal of the petition, it is found that the petition is filed against a show cause notice.
The petitioner has already filed reply and raised preliminary objection against show cause notice. So far contention of the malafide and biased are concerned, we do not find any foundation in the writ petition as no malafide is alleged against any individual. Considering aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of UP vs Brahma Datt Sharma and another Special Director vs Mohd Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, it does not find any case for interference against show cause notice.


The petitioner has already filed a reply and preliminary objection to the show cause notice, it goes without saying that the authority will take into consideration the reply and preliminary objection before passing any order on show cause notice and will decide the same in accordance with the law. With aforesaid observation, the present petition is dismissed, the single bench said.