^t^H c- IN THE HIGH COURT O^ CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI WRIT PETITION N0. 4-1 ^ O /2003/ PETITIONER ^ ^ a ^ •' ^'^ ^ / ^*,"t~ \' <:<•. fe ARVIND TIWARI ALIAS RAVI TIWARI SON OF SHRI DINESH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ^NTRA, P.S. PAATAN, DISTRICT DURG (PRESENTLY RESIDBD AT RAIPUR NAKA, P.S. CITY KOTWALI, TAH AND DISTT. DURG (CHHATTISGARH) VERSUS RESPONDBNTS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, D.K.S. BHAWAN, MANTRALAY, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH). 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTT. DURG (CHHATTISGARH). 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTT. DURG (C.G.( WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ffn" ^ HI6H COURT OF JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTIS6ARM) Writ Pctition No 4100 of 2003 Arvmd Tiwari alias Ravi Tiwou'i Versus State of Chhattisgarh and two others POST FOft ORDEft ON 19TO FEBftUARY, 2004^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ^ Judge 17.02.20W ESE^iu Rs^swTKWBfintta u° HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIUtSPUR aHHATTIS6ARm Writ Petition No.4100 of 2003 Arvind Tiwari alias ftavi Tiwari Versus State of Chhatl-isgarh and two others Present. - Mr. Sushil bubey, Advocate: For the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, 6ovt. Advocate: For -riie State/re^iondents. Before: Hon'ble L.C. Bhadoo. J OftbER (Possed on 19th February, 2004) 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Art-icle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whereby he has dialtenged the extemment order dated 06.11.2003 (Annexure P-l) passed by the District Magistrate, burg, and also the order dated 24.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Principal Secretary (Home), rejecting the oqspeai of 1+ie petitioner filed against -riie order of -rtie District Magistrate ctated 06.11.2003. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the SuperintCTident of Police, Durg, filed a complaint before the District Ma9istrate, burg, against the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to os the Acf), for extemment of the petitioner on -riie grounds 1+iat he is a criminal by nature; m the year 1995 he start-ed committ-ing crimes after coming into contact with crjminals; there is no control of his family members over him; he along with his mother is regutarly indulging in theft, beating, hooliganism <md -riireatCTiing the persons with dire as! g riNT s roSE ^ consequences; by show of force and dangerous weapons like knife, he is extort-ing money from the people in order to •ftjlfill his lust; and the people are so terrified of him that is why they are not coming forward to lodge rqiort in the Potice Statwn <md also to gwe evidence in the Court, thepefore, on account of the activities of Arvind Tiwan alkis Ravi Tiwari there is dan^r to person and property. In this comptaint, list of cases registered and challaned against the petitioner were mentioned which are extracted m para 5.5 of the writ petition. Upon receiving this complaint, the Oistrict Magistrate, after conducting the preliminary enquiry and satisfying himself with the allegations macte in the aimptaint, isa»dshow ccajse noY\ce to 1+ie petitioner on 13.10.2003. Reply of the same was filed by the petitioner and in his defwice he examined himfitelf and Kum. Siarda Sharma. However. written submissions and doajments were not fumidied by the petitioner. 3. The leamed District Magistrate after considering the peply of 1+ie petitioner, prosecution evidence and ptacing retian<»on the evidence of Khemroij Chondpakar, Shiv Kumar Yadav. Adiish Kumar, Sh'w Kumar Soni, Deokumar Janghel & M.R. Kadiyap and the p<ist a»nductof the petitiorrer in -the criminal cases filed agamst him, readied the conciusion that the alteged alfegations against the petitioner are true and on account of the behaviour and conduct of the l»titioner the general pubiic is terrified, no body is coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner and on account of the terror of the petitioner people are forced to enter into compromise in criminal aases and thereby he gets the acquittal order. Therefore, on account of the activities of the petitioner, pcMceful living of -rtie general public is distributed and there is reasomible cpprehension of danger to Ihe life and property of the general public. In the circumstances, in order to enajre the security of -riie pubtic property and to maintain peace. tranquility and pubtic order, the extemment of the petitjoner is essential. UJtimately, the leamed District Magistrate exercising the A^ o^ power under Section 5 (a) A (b) of the Act, passed the order of externmCTit of the petitioner for one year from the revenue districts of burg, ftajnoindgaon, Raipur, Kawardha. Dhamtari, Bikxspur and Kanker. Against this order, 1+ie petitioner preferred an oppeal uncter Section 9 of the Act before the Principal Secretary (Home). After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the Principal Secretary (Home) confirmed the order of the District Magistrote vide his order dated 24.11.2003 and dismissed the oppeal of -riie petitioner. 4. I have heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ftanbir Singh Marhas, ©ovt.Advocate for the State/reqaondents on admission. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that in most of the cdses, the petitioner has been acquitted and he was falsely implicated in all these ccuses. Moreover, these cases are very old, Ifie petitioner is a peace loving person, <md tiie impugned orders have been possed against the petitioner wjthout following the procedure as establidied under the law and without affording reasonable opporhinity to Itie petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are Jiabte to be quashed. In aipport- of his argument, he placed retiance on the decisions of Madhya Proctesh High Court reported in 1994 (l) VIBHA 168 (Ayubkhan vs. State of M.P. and another) and 2000 (1) M.P.L.J. 348 (Nyaju @ Niyaj Mohamined s/o 6u(hi Kha vs. Stat®of M.P.). 6. On the other hand. the ieamed ©ovt. Advocort® aibmitted that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and the leamed Collector after examining six witnesses cmd based on the criminal record, readied the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner are establi^ied and case under Section 5 (a) A (b) of the Act was irode out, that is why ^iow cause notice was issued to the petitioner; reply of th<e same was filed by the petitioner and in defence Y\^ ^''^—^S'i'Sf^^ he examined himself and one witness namely, Kum. Sharda Sharma. After considering the reply. material of the prosecution and the evidence of the petitioner, the leamed District MagistratB reached the conclusion that case under Section 5 (a) A (b) of the Act is established, that is why he passed the impugned order. In this case, principles of nalural justice have not been violated and the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Even at appeal stage, counsel for the petitioner argued the matter before the cppellate authority, 7. Now coming to the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner, in the case of A^ibkhan (^?rCT), the bivision Bendi of M.P. High Court on facts held that the extemment order was passed in February, 1993, after 18 months; the cases on which 1iie prosecution mmted the extemment of the petitioner were relating to 1979 to 1991; and during 18 months no case was reported against 1+ie petitior»rregarding his involvement in any of the crime or incident adversely affecting the public order. Therefore, 1+ie Court reached the conclusion that it cannot be said that because of the pre^nce of the person the Jife of the persons of the locality will be in doinger or there will be disturbance of public order. Even the evidence by the non-cpplicant in his defence was not considtered by the authority. Therefore, the Court- reached the conclusion that the grounds for extemment of 1+ie petitioner were not existing. In the case of Nyaju @ Niycy Mohammed (sjprc^ the Court reached the conclusion that the petitioner wos not allowed to adduce his evidence and the proyer was pejected. The Court- furt+ier reached the conclusion that it amounts to denial of the procedure established by taw as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. In the Jight of the above principles, if vue look into the facts of the pre%nt case and the evidence of witnesses examined by the District M^ Magistrate during the enquiry, ttiemraj Chandrakar has specifically stated that in the year 1995, the petitioner atong with his mo1+ier entered into a house and committed theft- of fts.9(%)/-. Shiv fajmar Yadav, the State House Officer, Police Station: Durg, has stated that the petitioner is a hooligan omd since 1995, he is regutarly indulging himsetf in criminal activities in which he is involved in the offence of theft, beating, hooliganism, thraxtening the per»»ns with dire consequen<»s, keeping ctoigerous weapons like knife wi1+i him and threatening the people. Wi-hTess Ashi^i Kumar has stated tiiat the petitjoner abused his sister and when he tried to intervene, he started beating him and when his father came, -riie petitioner assaulted his father also, -riiereafter, when he was going to lodge report in the Police Station, -Hie petitioner cmd his mother started beating him and threatened him with dire consequences. 9. Shiv Kumar Soni has stated in his evidence that on 15.06.2000 at 12 O' CIock in the night, some unknown person has petted stone and he started abusing from his house only. Thereafter, on 16.06.2000 at 8 a.m. Shanti Tiwari (mother of the petitioner) & ftavi Tiwari (the petitioner), after coming out of their house start-ed abusing and beating him and he received injuries on his tooth acwunt of the beating. Shiv Kumar Soni has fur-Hier stated -rfiat -riie petitioner entered the house of one Bhagwcm Sharma and started beating Indu Bai, w/o Bhagwan Sharma. The residents of the vicinity reported the matter to 1+ie Police. On occount of 1+ie terror of the petitioner, two persons have sold their shops and left the bcality. Deokumar Janghel has stated 1+iat the petitior»r is a man of quarrelsome mture, he is aiways indul^d in quarrels and the people are terrified on acwunt of the terror of the petitioner. Jhe petitioner had assottjlted one Marathi family with sickte and bite them with his tooth. M.ft. Kdshyap has stated that on 26.03.2003, the petitioner indulged in qikxrreling with his neighbours and had beaten 1+iem. Thepefore, a complaint under a.A S ss.Ss .s, .S.SSS u S Sections 107 A 116 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioner in •Hie Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Durg. 10. In his reply the petitioner has mentioned Kiat as far as cases of 1995 are concemed. he has been acquitted, but no copy of th®judgment of acquittal has been filed by him. He has admifted that the case registered on 19.03.2(%)3 is pending and the case which was pegistered on 19.02.2001 is also pending. In the present case, it is not like that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner on an old and stale matter. It is shown that Crime No.233/2003 was commined by the petitioner on 19.03.2003 and comphint under Sections 107 & 116 (3) of the CrJP.C. was lodged against the petitioner on 26.03.2003. The record shows that in the years 1999, 2000 & 2001 also criminal cases were lodged against the petjtioner. 11. Tlierefore, the order passed by 1+ie l®imedDistrict- Magistrate is based on the evidence of Ihe persons who were effected ond criminal cases which were lodged agajnst the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to estabtish 1+»athe has been falsely implicated and he is a peace loving person. As far as the defence evictence of the petitioner is concerned, the learned District Magistrate aft-er considering •riie evidence disbelieved the same and defence witness Kum. Sharda Sharma is retated to the petitioner. In this case, neither the principles of natural justice have been violated nor the procedure established by law has been viohted. In the first instance, the teamed bistrict Magistrate satisfied himsetf with the altegations after examining the witnesses oind perusing the record cmd thereafter. isaied ^iow aiuse notice to tiie petitioner for which reply was filed by him. After considering the defence evidence adduced by the petitioner. the learned District Magistrate reached the conctusion -riiat the presence of 1+ie petitioner in the locality is ctoiger to 1+ie life of persons and there will be disturboBice of the public order because in view of the 7 v-l'0 activities of tiie petitioner his mere presenw in the locality is hazardous to the community and its safety. 12. In tfie circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdictjon under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for sett'mg aside the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate and confirmed by -riie appellate authority. Therefore, I do not find any substdnce in this writ petition and the same is not worHi admission. Accordingly. the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. — Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Soma