1 2025:CGHC:20912-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 262 of 2025 Pintu Dewangan S/o Lt. Gopal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, PS Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge 07/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel along with Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.05.10 12:31:06 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioners from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 03.04.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) arising out of order dated 12.12.2024 (ANNEXURE P/2), in the interest of Justice. 10.3 Any, other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The backdrop of the case is that, on 11.09.2024, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.3-under section 8 of the CG State Security Act to the petitioner to explain the reason why he should not be externed from the district of balodabazar- bhatapara & surrounding 9 districts considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in illegal sale of liquor in Gandhi Ward Bhatapara & there is no Change in his behaviour due to which there is a threat to common public & peace of that area. Also, there are 6 criminal cases registered against the petitioner & 3 prohibitory measures have been taken against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submitted its reply before the respondent no.3 stating that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family having survived by his wife, 2 children, mother & is a labour & has not involved in any criminal activity which hampers the peace of the area or which brings fear among the common people. The 2 cases which was included was recorded in the name of one 3 Pappu dewangan as Crime No. 308/2023 & 501/2023 not Pintu Dewangan. The petitioner has not been convicted in any case & 2 cases, where the petitioner has been falsely convicted are pending before the Ld. Court below as Crime No. 236/2024 under section 34(1) of Excise Act & Crime No. 370/2024 under section 34(2) of Excise Act, which was fixed for evidence for evidence on 28.04.2025 & other was fixed for framing of charge on 06.05.2025 respectively. Also, no other cases are pending before any court of law. 5. Respondent no.3, on the basis of the report dated 09.09.2024 stated that there are 4 criminal cases registered under the Excise Act of the same year & 3 prohibitory measures have been taken against the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3, 5(b) of the CG State Security Act has passed an externment order of the petitioner from the district of Balodabazar- Bhatapara & surroundings 9 districts including Bilaspur, Mungeli, Bemetara, Janjgir-Champa, Raipur, Raigarh, Mahasamund, Sakti & Sarangarh-Billaigarh vide its order dated 12.12.2024, in view of maintaining public peace & security & as a prohibitory measure to control the criminal activities of the petitioner. 6. Against the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.3, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the state security act before the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no.1 vide its impugned order dated 03.04.2025, 4 affirmed the order of externment of the petitioner by dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner stating that there are 6 criminal cases registered against the petitioner between the year 2023-2024 & 3 prohibitory measures were also taken against the petitioner & in exercise of the powers conferred under section 5(b) of the CG state security act & considering the documents & evidences available on record, affirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2. Hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that that despite there is clear finding as per paragraph 12 of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority that the six offences considered by the District Magistrate for banishment proceedings against the appellant are under the Excise Act and none of the offences is such which is provided for taking action under Section 3, 5 (b) or other sections of the State Security Act 1990. The documents or evidence attached to the case do not show anywhere that due to the criminal activities of the appellant, the witness is afraid to give evidence or the safety of the body and property of the common people is being affected or the people of the area are afraid for their safety, but the impugned order of externment has passed by the Appellate Authority, which is bad in the eyes of law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that while passing the order of 5 externment, the competent authority has already recorded the subjective satisfaction, as such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. For deciding the instant petition, it would be relevant to go through the relevant legal provisions of the Act of 1990 under which the order of externment has been passed and which also prescribes the proceedings for recording of satisfaction on reasonable grounds to pass such an order are reproduced hereunder :- “Section. 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 reasonable 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 6 (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 duly 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 any 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. 11. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for maintenance of law and order. However, the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace. In the instant case, it is patently clear that the petitioner is involved in total 04 cases, and all the cases are pending consideration and in none of the cases he has been convicted. Further, in para 6 the Additional Chief Secretary has recorded that all the six offences pending against the petitioner are under the Excise Case and none of the offences is such which is provided for taking action under Section 3, 5 (b) or the other Sections of the State Security Act, 1990 and from the documents 7 or evidence attached to the case do not show anywhere that due to the criminal activities of the appellant the witnesses are afraid to give evidence or the safety of the body and property of the common people is being affected or the people of the area are afraid for their safety. 12. From the foregoing analysis and on close scrutiny of the material available on record, the following points emerge:- (i) it can be safely inferred that there was no objective material for recording subjective satisfaction to pass an order of externment against the petitioner/appellant. (ii) the State has failed to point out the necessity of passing an order of externment requiring curtailment of liberty of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the impugned order of externment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara as well as impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the State Government in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of externment are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed. SD/- SD/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu