JUDGMENT
P.C. Pathak, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the externment order dated 12-4-1990 (Annexure A) passed by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Balaghat and order dated 27-10-1990 (Annexure B) dismissing his appeal by respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The petitioner is a member of Kunbi community and a resident of Lanjhi, police station and tehsil Lanjhi, district Balaghat. By the impugned order, the petitioner was direct-ed, Under Section 12 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1980 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), remove himself outside district Balaghat and contiguous districts Seoni, Mandla and Raj nandgaon for a period of one year, and further informing him that in the event of contravention of the direction, the petitioner is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and fine.
3. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 20-12-1989 (Annexure C) Under Section 15(1) of the Act, detailing the general nature of material allegations against him and requiring him to tender explanation regarding them. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 16-1-1990 denying all the allegations and submitted that he is a social and political worker, engaged in upliftment of the society. His activities are opposed by some persons. Such persons have lodged maliciously false reports. He also protested against the corruption prevailing in the administration. On account of these, the police and the government servants harboured ill will and at the instance of such persons the police registered offences on false and baseless reports and filed charge-sheets in the courts. He submitted a list of 22 witnesses whom he desired to examine in his defence. On 13-3-1990, he examined 2 witnesses and prayed for opportunity to produce further witnesses but the same was turned down. The District Magistrate, thereafter, passed the impugned order. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the State Government, vide Annexure-B. The petitioner submits that the impugned orders are violative of Section 15, inasmuch as he was denied reasonable opportunity to show cause the allegations relied against him. He also submitted that the allegations are of minor and trivial character and should not have been made the basis to pass externment order against him.
4. The perusal of the show cause notice so also the impugned orders reveal that reliance was placed on incidents prior to Sept. 1987 and after April, 1989. No incident was reported between 29-9-1987 to 5-5-1989. Therefore, the incidents prior to 1987 could not be taken into account by the District Magistrate to support the externment order. This apart, the incidents prior to 1987 are too remote and are of minor characters. The first instance is dated 20-9-1985 in which the petitioner with his companion inflicted injuries to Premlal. A case Under Sections 325/326/34, IPC, was registered against him. Four days thereafter, another incident of assault on Premlal took place, which led to the initiation of proceedings Under Section 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against him. In November, 1985, the petitioner abused filthily Sukhrarn, a press-reporter, and threatened to kill him. Offence Under Sections 294/506, IPC, was registered against him. On 5-12-1985, the petitioner told Yuvraj, brother of Sukhram, that Sukhram cannot survive and he would beat him again for lodging report against him. Yet another incident is of 27-12-1985 when the petitioner abused and slapped Saurabh for his refusal to give his motor-cycle. We find all these incidents of 1985 were of trivial character.
5. Eleven incidents were reported in 1986 against the petitioner. These incidents pertain to assaults, threats and abuses given to certain persons. Preventive actions Under Sections 110, 151, 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken against him. We find none of the incidents are such as to cause alarm or danger to any person or property.
6. From January, 1987 to September, 1987, seven incidents were reported against the petitioner. Two incidents pertain to Hirachand, the President of Yuva Congress (I) who reported that the petitioner with the help of his companions was trying to nickname him and to spoil his future career in the party. No specific instance or the manner in which he was nicknamed or spoiled his future career, is mentioned in the notice. In April, 1987, one Sanjaya reported that the petitioner abused and slapped him. In July 1987 Sahdeo reported that the petitioner forcibly took possession of one room of the house, which he succeeded under a ‘Will’. On a report lodged by Shiva and Gulab, an offence Under Sections 323/34, IPC, was registered. In August 1987, one Mahfuz reported that the petitioner picked up quarrels with him and also beat him. On the basis of foregoing reports, a consolidated report was recorded on 29-9-87 that the petitioner is engaged in commission of offences involving force and violence and, therefore, it was requested to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for externment.
7. From September, 1987 to April 1989 not even one incident was reported against the petitioner. The first incident that was reported against him is dated 6-5-1989, in which the police party, engaged in searching out Kachru Sarber, was obstructed by the petitioner in discharge of duty. Offences Under Sections 186, 353, 506-B and 212, IPC, were registered against petitioner. On the basis of another report dated 6-5-1989 of Hirachand, offences under Sections 448, 294 and 506-B, IPC, were registered against the petitioner. Thus, we find that in December, 1989, there were only two incidents before the District Magistrate for issue of show cause notice to the petitioner. On careful scrutiny we find that report dated 6-5-1989, is absolutely vague and does not disclose the nature of acts committed by the petitioner that may amount to obstruct the police in discharge of public duties. The other incident complained by Hirachand is of a minor character and hardly of much significance for passing the impugned orders. From 6-5-1989 to the date of issue of show cause notice in December 1989, no incidents were reported against him. Thus, it is difficult to accept that there was any material before the District Magistrate for believing that the petitioner was engaged or was about to be engaged in commission of offences involving force or violence.
8. The notice also reveals that in the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. This ground appears to have been stated in the show cause notice in a casual manner for it is difficult to believe that police officers or persons like Hirachand President of Yuwak Congress (I) cannot come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner.
9. The District Magistrate, thus failed to apply his mind, before passing the impugned order of externment.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the order is mala fide and that it was passed without giving reasonable opportunity of tendering his explanation. Since we find that the grounds were not sufficient to issue show cause notice, we are not called upon to examine the merits of these submissions.
11. The petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 12-4-1990 (Annexure A) and dated 27-10-1990 (Annexure B) passed by the District Magistrate, Balaghat and the State Government respectively, are quashed. No order as to costs.