Court quashes externment order citing lack of hearing, violation of natural justice

The court allowed the petition challenging the externment order, noting the violation of natural justice principles as the District Magistrate did not allow sufficient time for the petitioner to produce acquittal orders. Despite the availability of an appeal remedy, the court found the petition maintainable under Article 226. The court quashed the externment order based on the lack of proper hearing and the absence of serious offenses in the criminal cases against the petitioner.

---

---

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.

---