1 2025:CGHC:51574-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 548 of 2025 Jittu Yadav S/o Shri Nathuram Aged About 37 Years R/o Old Kharve, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - District Magistrate District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/10/2025 1 Heard Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 10:31:11 +0530 2 “10.1 To call for records pertaining to the case of petitioner; and 10.2 Quash the order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 1 affirming the externing order dated 18.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 for the district of Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 10.3 To issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders awarding suitable compensation to the petitioner from the erring respondent authorities; or 10.4 To grant any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 3-Joint Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara issued a show cause notice dated 24.04.2025 to the petitioner wherein a reply was sought from him explaining as to why an externment order against him should not be passed for the District of Balodabazar-Bhatapara, but in the aforementioned show cause notice, certain words such 'goonda' was used without mentioning the offences committed by the petitioner, and thereafter, in a mechanical manner, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 18.06.2025, externing the petitioner for a period of one year year from the District of Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 4 Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offences stated in the order dated 18.06.2025 are of prohibitory nature and under the Excise Act, and further almost all of them have been disposed of with a simple imprisonment of 1 month and as such no new case has been registered against the petitioner in the year 2025, but nothing was considered and the order dated 18.06.2025 was passed by respondent 3 sparing the liberty of the petitioner thereby violating the Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 before the respondent No. 1 and that has been mechanically dismissed on the count of delay, as the appeal was preferred after the lapse of 30 days, therefore the authority did not even enter into the merits of the case and passed the order dated 03.10.3025, which is nothing but highly gross, illegal and unjustified. Hence this petition. 5 On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that there is no error in the order passed either by the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara or by the Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Chhattisgarh. The appeal was filed belatedly and as such, there is no illegality and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 The externment order was passed by the Collector on 18.06.2025 wherein five offences committed by the petitioner relating to the Excise Act and two Ishtagashas have been mentioned meaning thereby that the petitioner is a habitual offender. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of externment, he was required to prefer the appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, the Act of 1990), against the order of the Collector within a period of 30 days but the appeal was filed belatedly on 12.09.2025 and the same has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 8 The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Act of 1990 does not provide for any provision for condoning the delay, 4 the petitioner is remediless. However, another aspect of the matter is that there is no explanation as to why the petitioner approached the appellate authority belatedly after approximately 50 days. 9 There is no dispute that this Court is having ample power to condone the delay, but with a caveat that the delay so caused was bonafide. 10 In the present petition also, no reason has been assigned which led to filing of the appeal belatedly. An aggrieved party cannot take its own time to file petition / appeals and the same has to be done strictly in accordance with law adhering to the provisions made under the relevant Acts/Rules. If the statute does not permit condoning the delay, the same cannot be condoned. It is well settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. 11 We do not find any merit in this petition and as such, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet