1 2025:CGHC:25337-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 258 of 2025 1 - Dilip Kumar Miri S/o Chhatram Miri Aged About 37 Years R/o Qr. No. - 2/9, Manikpur, Chowki Manikpur, Police Station - Kotwali, Korba, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department Of Home, Govt., Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Chief Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Director General Of Police Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - District Magistrate Korba, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.19 14:33:51 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/06/2025 1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Set-aside order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Magistrate, Korba, Distt. Korba in Cr. (C.G.) Case No. 202404050400010/2024, u/s 3 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990; and/or (ii) Set-aside order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home. (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice; 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a peace loving socially responsible citizen. He is a member of popular Social Organization Chhattisgarhiya Kranti Sena. He is presently Pradesh Mantri in the organization. The petitioner and the organization work on range of issue relating to environment, labour rights, Chhattisgarhi identity. The petitioner is also an advocate enroll with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh. That, in the process of his social activism the petitioner has been targeted by delinquent companies in collusion with the state and police authorities. The acting on the report of the Superintendent of Police, District - Korba, the District Magistrate Korba, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under section 3, 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990. The District Magistrate Korba, passed impugned order dated 14.11.2024 under section 3 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, whereby the petitioner 3 has been directed to remove himself from Korba District as well as from nearby Districts Bilaspur, Janjgir-Champa, Sakti, Raigarh, Surguja, Surajpur, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Gaurela - Pendra Marwahi for period of one year. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind and is based on extraneous considerations. The petitioner filed an appeal against order dated 14.11.2024 passed by District Magistrate Korba, under section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990, which was dismissed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgrh, Department of Home vide order dated 28.02.2025 on the ground of being time barred being filed beyond the limitation period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Advocate and owing to impugned order, he is unable to do the practice. She would submit that the petitioner, his family member and also his old aged parents are facing lot of difficulties in their day to day life. Learned counsel would submit that that the impugned order is not in accordance with Section 3 & 5 of the Chhattigarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (henceforth ‘the Adhiniyam, 1990’). In fact, the impugned order is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He would submit that against the petitioner, five preventive cases and eight cases under the provision of the IPC have been registered and out of which in five cases, the trial is 4 going on. Even, the petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of the Gambling Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner used to extort the money from the contractors. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the order impugned passed by the District Magistrate, Korba under the provisions of Section 3 & 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is an habitual offenders and several cases have been registered against him. Despite preventive orders passed against him, there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. It is also evident that the petitioner used to commit Loot or Marpeet with the public. Thus, in our considered view, the order impugned is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. Even the petitioner has failed to establish his case by placing cogent material before this Court. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition (Cr.) sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri