Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Dilip Sisodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
1 WP-10488-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10488 of 2025
SHRI DILIP SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Priyal Suryavanshi - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.4
externing the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha
Adhiniyam, 1990 and further the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the
appellate authority affirming the order of externment, the present petition has
been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Adivasi farmer resident
of village Chainpura, Tehsil Nepanagar, District Burhanpur. He along with
other Adivasis have been campaigning for the proper implementation of the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act 2006 (hereinafter referred as ‘Forest Rights Act, 2006’)
through their community organization namely ‘Jagrit Adivasi Dalit
Sangathan’. They are also campaigning against illegal de-forestation. The
petitioner and associated Adivasis have been campaigning against atrocities
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
2 WP-10488-2025
meted out by the forest department officials against forest rights claimants,
such as illegal assault, detention, custodial torture and attempts of illegal
eviction of rightful claimants in violation of Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights
Act, 2006. They have also complained against illegal firing upon Adivasi by
the forest department officials during the illegal eviction action wherein four
adiwasis were injured and subsequently an FIR No.359 of 2019 was
registered again the responsible officers. In August 2020, they were falsely
implicated in malicious prosecution and were subjected to illegal custodial
torture by the forest officials, for which, a public protest was organized and
representations were preferred to the local authorities. During the years 2020
– 2022, the petitioner and his associates have made several representations
regarding illegal deforestation in Burhanpur and adjoining regions of
Khandwa, but are no consequence. The petitioner along with his
organization have participated in a rally on 24.01.2023 and submitted a
memorandum to the Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh and
District Magistrate asking for stopping of illegal deforestation and to
investigate regarding the role of forest officials.
3. It is argued that an FIR No.358 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 353, 332 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Indian
Forest 1927 was registered, in which, the petitioner was arrested after four
years. The arrest of the petitioner was owing to his participation in Dharna
proceedings. He was falsely implicated in another FIR No.717 of 2022 for
the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 427 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. It is contended that in FIR No. 358 of 2019, no charge-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
3 WP-10488-2025
sheet is filed till date. On the complaint made by the petitioner, an FIR
No.359 of 2019 was registered the forest officials, in which, no action has
been taken till date. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 has submitted a
complaint on 03.05.2024 to the respondent No.4 seeking externment of the
petitioner under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha
Adhiniyam, 1990, on the basis of which, a case was registered against the
petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 03.05.2024 alleging
that he is aiding and participating in illegal encroachment and illegal tree
felling and that he being a threat to the forests of Burhanpur. Further
allegation is that the petitioner had threatened the forest officials. A reply
was duly filed by the petitioner 20.05.2024, however, without taking the note
to the crucial facts, the impugned order of externment of the petitioner from
districts of Burhanpur, Khandwa, Khargone, Barwani and Harda for a period
of one year with effect from 15.07.2024 was passed, against which, an
appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Indore Division
and the same has also been dismissed without considering the grounds raised
by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. It is argued that in terms of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surksha
Adhiniyam, 1990 an opinion seeking externment has to be given by the
police authority, especially the Superintendent of Police of a particular
district. The respondent No.5 being the District Forest Officer, Burhanpur
was not the competent to give an opinion or application seeking externment
of the petitioner. It is argued that the impugned order reflects that three
criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, i.e. FIR No.624 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
4 WP-10488-2025
2020, FIR No.358 of 2019 and FIR No.717 of 2022 and ten forest offenses
have been registered against the petitioner i.e. 10 PORs, however, till date no
subsequent action has been taken by the authorities on the said PORs. No
notices have been received by the petitioner with respect to said 10 PORs.
The entire action has been taken against the petitioner as he had actively
participated in social protest and are making complaints against the forest
officials regarding their involvement in deforestation activities. There is no
complaint made by the Gram Sabha or its member against the petitioner
regarding illegal deforestation. He has also placed on record the documents
to show that the Divisional Forest Officer has no power to recommend for
initiation of externment proceedings. It is the Superintendent of Police, who
can give his opinion with respect to initiation of externment proceedings
against a person. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the
externment proceedings initiated against him.
5. On notice being issued, the respondents/authorities have not filed
any response to the petition, however, they have produced the records
pertaining to the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It is
pointed out that the petitioner was actively involved in illegal activities; like
deforestation and on certain occasions had also taken aggressive assaults as
well as abusing to the forest officials and always tried to create law and order
situation. 10 PORs i.e. forest offences were registered against the petitioner
since from 2018. Three criminal cases are registered against the petitioner; in
the years 2019, 2020 and 2022. Active participation and involvement of the
petitioner is reflected from the FIRs. There is allegation against the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
5 WP-10488-2025
that he used to pressurize President, Secretary and other members of the
Adivasi Sangathan to get his work executed. The Divisional Forest Officer
formed an opinion taking note of forest offences as well as criminal cases
registered against the petitioner and made complaint to the
Collector/respondent No.4 for initiation of externment proceedings. The
Collector has taken cognizance on the said letter and has rightly initiated
proceedings against the petitioner for externment. No procedural flaw is
pointed out by the counsel for the respondents in externment proceedings
against the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the argument that Respondent No. 5 is not competent to
recommend and give his opinion regarding initiation of external proceeding
in terms of Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surksha Adhiniyam,
1990 is concerned, it is seen that the respondent No.5/Forest Officer has
made a detailed opinion for initiation of externment proceedings against the
petitioner taking note of 10 forest offences i.e. PORs registered against the
petitioner since 2018 and three criminal cases registered against him
including involvement of the petitioner in inflicting injuries to the forest
officials when they tried to stop such illegal activities. It is the Collector who
is competent to under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surksha Adhiniyam to see
that whether material placed before him is sufficient for initiation of
externment proceedings. As argued and pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner
to that extent are correct. The externment order was passed way back on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
6 WP-10488-2025
15.07.2024 for a period of one year directing for externment of the petitioner
from the districts of Burhanpur, Khandwa, Khargone, Barwani and Harda.
The said order was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 16.12.2024. The
externment period was for only one year, which almost stood completed
when the matter is taken up for consideration on 11.07.2025. Therefore, no
need to go into the procedural aspect of externment proceedings initiated by
the authorities.
8. The only question which requires consideration is that whether the
respondent No.5 was competent enough to recommend for initiation of
externment proceedings against the petitioner. The relevant provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are required to be seen,
which reads as under:
“4. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons.
– Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate that the
movement or encampment of any gang or body of
persons in the district is causing or is calculated to
cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that
unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body,
or by members thereof the District Magistrate, may by
an order addressed to the persons appearing to be the
leaders or chiefmen of such gang or body and published
by beat of rumor otherwise, as the District Magistrate
thinks fit, direct the members of such gang or body,-
(a)to conduct themselves in such manner as may be
necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm; or
(b)to disperse and each of them to remove himself
outside the district or any part thereof or such area, and
any district or districts, or any part thereof contiguous
thereto with such time as the District Magistrate may
specify, and not to enter the said district or part thereof
or such area and such contiguous districts, or part
thereof, as the case may be or not to return to the place
from which each of them was directed to remove
himself.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
7 WP-10488-2025
5. Removal of persons about to commit offence.
– Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate-
(a)that the movements or acts of any person are causing
or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person
or property; or
(b)that there are reasonably grounds for believing that
such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving force or violence
or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or
XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abatement of any
such offence, and when in the opinion of the District
Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public against such person by reason
of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of
their person or property; or
(c)that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to
result from the continued residence of an immigrant;
the District Magistrate may, by an order in writing duty
served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the
District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or
immigrant-
(a)so as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in
order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or
spread of such disease; or
(b)to remove himself outside the district or my part
thereof or such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route within
such time as the District Magistrate may specify and not
to enter or return to the said district or part thereof or
such area and such contiguous districts, or part thereof,
as the case may be, from which he was directed to
remove himself.”
9. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that, it is
no where mention regarding recommendations being made by the
Superintendent of Police for initiation of externment proceedings. Looking to
the activities of the petitioner and allegations made against him, the
respondent No.5 found it feasible to refer the matter to the Collector,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
8 WP-10488-2025
Burhanpur forming an opinion against the petitioner for initiation of
externment proceedings. The Collector after considering the materials placed
before him, has formed his opinion on externment proceedings. A show
cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner. He has filed a reply to the
show cause notice. The entire materials placed before the Collector were
taken into consideration along with statements of witnesses, which were
recorded, therefore, the externment proceedings initiated against the
petitioner are virtually correct.
10. As far as competency of the authority is concerned, the Act of
1990 does not refer to a particular authority for recommending for initiation
of a proceedings for externment. The present case particularly deals with
forest offences and other criminal activities being carried out by the
petitioner in reserved forest areas, for which, three criminal cases were
registered against him. The authority recommended for initiation of a
proceeding is the competent authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act of
1990. Therefore, argument raised regarding competence of the authority for
initiation of externment proceedings is per se illegal. Recommendations
were sent on 01.05.2024, notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2024,
he has filed reply to the show cause notice on 20.05.2024. The material
placed before the authorities along with reply before the authorities were
duly considered and thereafter an order has been passed. The very purpose of
initiation of externment proceedings to restrain a person for committing
another offence of like nature in near future and in such circumstances, the
order of externment must be passed in close proximity of the offences
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
9 WP-10488-2025
committed by a person. The District Magistrate has proceeded expeditiously
in the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has
passed the impugned order. The basic purpose and concept of preventive
detention is that detention of a person is not to punish him for something he
has done, but to prevent him for doing it. The basis of detention is entire
satisfaction of the executive of reasonable probability of the likelihood of the
detenue acting in a manner similar to his past act and preventing him by
detention from doing the same. The proceedings of externment are virtually
initiated for preventing or restricting a person from committing a similar
offence again and to prevent him from disturbing public tranquility and from
committing any other illegal activities of like nature. It may be a case that 10
PORs were registered against the petitioner and 3 criminal cases are
registered against him, which are not denied by the petitioner at any point of
time. However, the only justification which is given by the petitioner is that
the authorities have not taken any action on the PORs against the petitioner,
coupled with the facts that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the
criminal cases. The fact remains that preventive action of externment is to be
taken looking to the conduct of a person. The very conduct of the petitioner
had made him liable for externment proceedings from a particular district as
he is regularly causing hindrance in official duties of the forest officials by
himself and by instigating the Adiwasi Sangathan for going on Dharna or
other activities against the officials so that the petitioner may carry out his
illegal activities. It is not a case that action has been taken against the
petitioner for his mere participation in Dharna proceedings, rather the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34388
10 WP-10488-2025
materials placed before the authorities are to the extent that the petitioner was
involved in committing offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
which was an assault made on the forest officials, therefore, the externment
proceedings were rightly initiated against him. It is a clear observation made
by the Collector that owing to terror of the petitioner, none of the witnesses
are coming forward to depose against the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner
were just and proper and does not call for any interference in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51