Madhya Pradesh HC Orders Chief Secretary To Ensure Externment Orders Are Not Passed By District Magistrates Under Political Pressure

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed against an order of the Collector and District Magistrate whereby the petitioner was externed from the District of Burhanpur and its neighbouring districts for one year. Though his period of externment had come to an end on January 22, 2025, he insisted that it be examined whether the District Magistrate was acting in excess of his authority.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held, “Even the Divisional Commissioner who is a Senior Authority of the State Government has mechanically passed the impugned order.”

Advocate Priyal Suryavanshi appeared for the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni appeared for the respondents State.

Factual Background

It was mentioned in the impugned Order that 11 offences were mentioned under the Forest Act against the petitioner from the year 2018 to the year 2023 and thereafter, in the year 2019 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332 and 427 of IPC. Another case was registered in the year 2022 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 427 and 506 of the IPC.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that no statements had been recorded about how the registration of these cases was a danger to public order and safety. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a Driver and he is being prosecuted for reasons other than the reasons contained in law.

Reasoning

As per the Bench, Forest Offences had been mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate without having any relevance. It was further noticed that Forest Offences were not mentioned in Section 6 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Moreover, the word used in the section is 'If a person has been convicted' - but there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had been convicted in relation to the two offences under the Indian Penal Code.

“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”, the Bench held.

The Court further held, “Thus, orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner having been passed without application of mind and without explaining that how the Provisions of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 could have been invoked against the intent of the legislature wherein, it is clearly mention that removal of persons convicted of certain offences and as we understand as student of law, merely lodging of FIR is not having meaning of being convicted, it is evident that District Magistrate has misused his authority.”

The Court also highlighted that the District Magistrate 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. Thus, allowing the writ petition, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 upon the State which could be recovered from the concerned District Magistrate.“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 Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Shri Antram Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:2389)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Priyal Suryavanshi

Respondent-State: Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni

Click here to read/download Order