Surendra Lutare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
1 WP-44508-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
th
ON THE 6 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44508 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010790532026
SURENDRA LUTARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Smita Varma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:
"7.1 Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,
or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
13.10.2026 passed in case no. 0024/Appeal/2026-2027(Anx. P/1)
passed by Respondent No. 2 and impugned Externment Order
dated 23.03.2026 (Passed in Case No. 0037/Jila Badar/2025)
(Anx.P/2) issued by Respondent No. 3 (District Magistrate,
Narmadapuram);
7.2 Issue writ of certorari to quash all the proceedings, order
staying the operation, execution, and implementation of the
impugned order dated 13.10.2026 and 23.03.2026 during the
pendency of this Writ Petition;
7.3 Issue writ of mandamus directing the authorities to quash all
proceedings of externment as without jurisdiction and not
maintainable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
2 WP-44508-2026
7.4 Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice;
7.5 Award the cost of this petition to the Petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order
of externment dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P/2) as well as the order of the
Appellate Authority dated 13.10.2026 (Annexure P/1) are unsustainable on
two grounds; firstly, the proximity of commission of offences with the order
of externment makes it clear that there was no occasion to pass an order of
externment. Secondly, the District Magistrate was required to form an
opinion justifying the petitioner's externment. It is contended by the counsel
that the formation of opinion by the District Magistrate is sine qua non. The
District Magistrate is required to come to categorical findings that on
account of threat at the behest of the petitioner, the witnesses are not coming
forward to depose against him. If such an opinion is not formed by the
District Magistrate, the order becomes unsustainable. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid, counsel submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
In support of her contention, counsel has placed reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. &
others reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 434 as well as the decision of this Court in
W.P.No.31360/2026 (Faizan Ali vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others) decided on 09.09.2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order of
the District Magistrate palpably reflects the criminal past of the petitioner. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
3 WP-44508-2026
is contended by the counsel that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there

are series of cases against him, and the petitioner has committed offences
almost every year and therefore, taking note of the criminal past and also the
effect of such criminal activities of the petitioner on the public at large, it was
thought desirable to pass an order of externment. It is further contended by
the counsel that it was even proposed by the Superintendent of Police that on
account of threat posed by the petitioner, even the people were not coming
forward to lodge the First Information Report against the present petitioner.
It is thus contended that the order impugned having been passed in terms of
the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, does
not require any interference.
4. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, a perusal of the record reflects that against the petitioner as many as
18 cases were registered. Out of those 18 cases, approximately 12 cases were
registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. The
record further reflects that in the year 2021, as many as 5 cases were
registered against the petitioner; in the year 2022, there were 3 cases; in the
year 2023, no case was registered. In the year 2024 one case was registered,
and then again in the year 2025, two cases were registered against the
present petitioner. The proposal on the basis of criminal past of the petitioner
was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, vide his
report dated 04.06.2025 contained in Annexure P/3. The District Magistrate
thereafter requisitioned the record and proceeded to pass the impugned order.
The District Magistrate while passing the impugned order has not formed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
4 WP-44508-2026
any opinion to the effect that on account of the petitioner's criminal past,

witnesses are not coming forward to depose against him. Formation of such
an opinion is sine qua non, as has been laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra).
5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Patel (supra) has held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:-

"10. The second condition which must be satisfied for passing of
an order of externment against a person is that in the opinion of
the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward
to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of
apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property.
Construing a pari materia provision in section 27 of the City of
Bombay Police Act, 1902 in Gurbachan Singh v. The State of
Bombay, (1952) 1 SCC 683 : AIR 1952 SC 221, the Supreme
Court observed:—
“The law is certainly an extra-ordinary one and has been made
only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear
of violence to their person or property are willing to depose
publicly against certain bad characters whose presence in certain
areas constitute a menace to the safety or the public residing
therein.”
11. In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned
order only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against
the petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and
because of this there is fear and terror in the public and has not
recorded any clear opinion on the basis of materials, that in his
opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against such person by a reason of
apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or
property. In most of the cases, Challans have been filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
5 WP-44508-2026
Police in Court obviously after examination of the witnesses under
section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and the cases are pending
in the Court. There is no reference in the order of District
Magistrate that witnesses named in the Challans filed by the
Police are not coming forward to give evidence against the
petitioner in Court. Hence, in the absence of any existence of
material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a
reason of apprehension to danger to their person or property to
give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged
offences, an order under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be
passed by the District Magistrate by merely repeating the language
of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990.


6. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court clearly
reflects that the order of extenrment is required to be passed when the
conditions as mentioned in Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 are fulfilled. The
formation of opinion is required to be reduced into writing by the District
Magistrate, and in absence of any such findings in the order, the same
becomes vulnerable, having been passed contrary to the provisions of
Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990.
7. In the case in hand, apparently there is no opinion in the order
impugned passed by the District Magistrate dated 23.03.2026 contained in
Annexure P/2, this Court is of the considered view that the conditions so
stipulated in Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 have not been fulfilled in the
case in hand, and therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable.
8. Resultantly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned
order passed by the District Magistrate dated 23.03.2026 contained in
Annexure P/2 as well as the order of Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90581
6 WP-44508-2026
Division Narmadapuram, District Narmadapuram dated 13.10.2026

contained in Annexure P/1 stand quashed. If in the future, the externment of
the petitioner is found imperative in the larger interest of the public, then the
respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner ensuring
adherence to the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 without being influenced with this order.
9. With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:41:30