1 2025:CGHC:25575-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 328 of 2025 Kanhaiya Lal Gond S/o. Jogi Gond, aged about 32 years R/o. Sakin - Semariya, Police Station and Tehsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 .0 6 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as ell as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “10.1. Call for the records of the case; 10.2. Quash the appellate order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, affirming the order of externment; 10.3. Quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, in the interest of justice; 10.4. Pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. The backdrop of the case is that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate based on a report dated 06.09.2022 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir- Champa, recommending initiation of proceedings under Sections 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Tthe show cause notice referred to several past criminal cases against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. The learned District Magistrate passed an order dated 29.11.2024, directing expulsion of the petitioner for one year, solely relying on the police report and past allegations. Aggrieved by the said externment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, submitting that in several of the cases referred by the Superintendent of Police, he had already been acquitted by competent courts of law, and the remaining were of minor nature or settled in Lok Adalat. The 3 Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 03.04.2025, thereby affirming the impugned externment order passed by the District Magistrate. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the show cause notice (Annexure P/2) issued to the petitioner was solely based on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police dated 06.09.2022, without any independent assessment or application of mind by the District Magistrate. Though the show cause notice referred to several past criminal cases against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that he had already been acquitted in most of the criminal cases, and the remaining were either minor in nature or instituted due to personal enmity. It was further stated that no act of the petitioner had ever caused fear or danger to public safety or order. But, despite a detailed and justified reply, and without recording any independent satisfaction or verifying the current conduct of the petitioner, the learned District Magistrate passed a unilateral order dated 29.11.2024, directing expulsion of the petitioner for one year, solely relying on the police report and past allegations. He further submitted that though in the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner has already been acquitted in Crime Nos. 354/2014, 37/2015, 118/2018, 105/2019, 797/2021 and 505/2021 and in the remaining Istegasas i.e. 295/2018, 378/2019, 02/2019, 281/2019 and 01/2022, the petitioner has also been acquitted or the cases 4 were of preventive nature and have since been disposed of, but, the learned Appellate Authority, without considering the aforesaid aspects, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 03.04.2025. 5. It has been further argued that out of 13 cases, 05 cases i.e. Crime Nos. 354/2014, 37/2015, 118/2018, 105/2019, 451/2019 are of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 03 cases i.e. Crime Nos. 521/2019, 505/2021 and 797/2021 are under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and remaining 05 cases are Istegasas i.e. 295/2018, 378/2019, 02/2019, 281/2019 and 01/2022 which are preventive in nature and the petitioner has already been acquitted in Crime Nos. 354/2014, 37/2015, 118/2018, 105/2019, 797/2021 and 505/2021 and in the remaining Istegasas i.e. 295/2018, 378/2019, 02/2019, 281/2019 and 01/2022, the petitioner has also been acquitted or the cases were of preventive nature and have since been disposed of. He submitted that as per Section 5(B) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, ‘the Act of 1990’), there has to be 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 5 apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, as such, the authorities have passed the order impugned in the mechanical manner without considering the true aspect of the case. He would further submitted that the petitioner has already remained out of the district for more than 6-7 months in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which has been upheld by the appellate authority. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that while passing the order of externment, the competent authority has already recorded the subjective satisfaction, as such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 8. 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 6 (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 (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. 9. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for maintenance of law and order. However, the drastic action of 7 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. 10. From perusal of the impugned orders and materials available on record, it transpires that for taking action of externment against the petitioner, Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa has presented the information about the involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities to the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa alleging that the petitioner is a person of criminal and hooligan nature of Pamgarh police station area. Since the year 2014, he along with his associates has been continuously involved in hooliganism, fights, quarrels, abuses, assaults, deadly attacks, gets agitated on complaints against him and starts threatening. He tries to create pressure at higher levels to hide his criminal activities. Due to fear and terror of him, the people of Pamgarh area are not able to inform the police about many crimes committed by him. Since his act poses a serious threat to the security of public peace and a situation of adverse effect on public order is created and a request has been made to take preventive action against the petitioner. District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in relation to the above mentioned report of the Superintendent of Police, Jangir- Champa and summoned him for hearing. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that he had already been acquitted in most of the criminal cases, and the remaining 8 were either minor in nature or instituted due to personal enmity. It was further stated that no act of the petitioner had ever caused fear or danger to public safety or order. But, the learned District Magistrate passed an order dated 29.11.2024, directing expulsion of the petitioner for one year, observing that the petitioner has not submitted any document/evidence in his reply regarding his acquittal in the case related to the applicant Sundar Gond, in Crime No. 521/19 of Pamgarh Police Station, Section 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, incident dated 02.12.2019 village Semaria, due to which it is not clear that he has been acquitted of the said crime. Also, it is clear from the sworn statements of prosecution witnesses Surendra Khandekar, Sundar God, Malikram Gond and Omprakash Kurre that the petitioner is not improving his behavior, due to which an atmosphere of terror and fear prevails among the people of the police station area. The said order of externment dated 29.11.2024, directing expulsion of the petitioner for one year passed by District Magistrate has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.04.2025. 11. Looking to the number of criminal activities registered under different Acts and prohibitory actions taken against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has followed the due procedure of law and has rightly passed the impugned order against the petitioner under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1990. Moreover, considering the finding recorded Appellate Authority 9 while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and also considering the nature of cases registered against the petitioner and his anti-social activities and action taken by the respondents is preventive in nature, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jangir-Champa as well as in order impugned dated - 03.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/State, whereby the appeal preferred under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 has been dismissed. 12. However, considering the fact that out of 13 cases, 05 cases i.e. Crime Nos. 354/2014, 37/2015, 118/2018, 105/2019, 451/2019 are of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 03 cases i.e. Crime Nos. 521/2019, 505/2021 and 797/2021 are under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and remaining 05 cases are Istegasas i.e. 295/2018, 378/2019, 02/2019, 281/2019 and 01/2022 which are preventive in nature and the petitioner has already been acquitted in Crime Nos. 354/2014, 37/2015, 118/2018, 105/2019, 797/2021 and 505/2021 and in the remaining Istegasas i.e. 295/2018, 378/2019, 02/2019, 281/2019 and 01/2022, the petitioner has also been acquitted or the cases were of preventive nature and have since been disposed of and further considering the fact that after 2022, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and that the petitioner has already remained out of District Janjgir- Champa and nearby districts i.e. Sakti, Raigarh, Korba, Bilaspur 10 and Balodabazar for more than 6-7 months in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which has been upheld by the appellate authority, the petitioner is permitted to enter the aforesaid districts, the entrance in which was restricted. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra