Direct DMs To Not Pass Orders Under Political Pressure: MP High Court To State Chief Secretary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of State to direct District Magistrates to not act and pass orders under political pressure, without appreciating the true intent and meaning of law.

A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “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 present petition was filed against the order of externment of petitioner passed by the Court of Collector and District Magistrate, District Burhanpur. The petitioner insisted that the matter should be examined on its own merits and alleged that the District Magistrate Burhanpur was acting in excess of his authority and was guided by extraneous consideration rather than considerations contained in law.

As per the factual matrix of the case, there were 11 offences under the Forest Act registered against the petitioner from the year 2018 to the year 2023 and thereafter, in the year, 2019 case 2 cases were registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither any statements have been recorded as to how the registration of these cases is danger to the public order and safety. It was further submitted that the petitioner was working as a Driver and he has been prosecuted for reasons other than the reasons contained in law.

Deputy Advocate General was asked to demonstrate from the record as to how Forest offences will come under the preview of Section 6 (Removal of persons convicted Removal of persons convicted of certain offences) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 so as to invoke its provisions to pass an order of externment. To this, he admits that those cases would not fall under the ambit of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 but two offences registered in the year, 2019 and 2022 would fall within Chapter XII of IPC and therefore, taking cognizance of those two cases, Collector/District Magistrate was competent to pass appropriate orders for externment.

Further, Deputy Advocate General for the State was asked to show from the record that which of the witnesses were examined to record their statements that presence of the petitioner is a danger to the safety and security or to the public order. In reply to this, he submitted that the statements could not be recorded because the locality in which petitioner was operating was a Tribal Infested Area and none of the Tribes came forward to depose against the petitioner. When court asked him to provide the names of the persons who were approached by the District Administration for recording of their statements, the Counsel submitted that the names of such persons are not available with him.

After hearing the parties, the court concluded that Forest Offences were mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate without having any relevance.

Further, while referring to Section 6 of the Act of 1990, the Court said that it was evident that Forest Offences are not mentioned in Section 6 of the Adhiniyam of 1990. Secondly, the word used is 'If a person has been convicted' - but there was no material on record to show that, in regard to two offences under the Indian Penal Code, petitioner has been convicted. The District Magistrate has just mentioned that FIRs have been registered against the petitioner.

Thus, the court opined that without there being any conviction, merely on the registration of FIR, petitioner cannot be subjected to invocation of Provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

“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 said.

The court further observed, “It is evident that District Magistrate has 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. If this would have been true, than, the District Magistrate would have disclosed the names of such persons who were approached for recording of their statements and they had refused to give their statements then Court could have obtained the report in this behalf, but this attitude of the District Magistrate to gloss over the matter is grossly inappropriate.”

Thus, the writ petition was allowed and externment order was set aside.

The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50000 on the Respondents/State for the harassment caused to the petitioner and granted the liberty to State to recover the said amount from the concerned District Magistrate.

Case Title: Shri Antram Awase Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 37725 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 25

Click Here To Read/Download Order