1 2026:CGHC:16-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 646 of 2025 Saurabh Soni S/o Narendra Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o Aamatalab Road, Tehsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Superintendent Of Police Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. The Station House Officer P.S.- City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravitosh Kale, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravitosh Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.02 16:49:00 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court; and 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned appellate order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in case no.एफ 4-107/गृह सी / 2025. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned externment order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Case No. 202504130100005. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Amatalaab Road, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. The present petition arises out of proceedings initiated under the 3 Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, pursuant to which the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, has passed an order of externment against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the externment proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report dated 31.03.2025 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, alleging that since the year 2016 the petitioner, along with certain associates, has been involved in incidents of intimidation, quarrelling, use of weapons and rioting within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari. It was also alleged that previous actions taken under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and other preventive laws had not yielded any improvement and that members of the public were allegedly afraid to depose against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the said report, the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, issued a show-cause notice and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 under Section 5(a) and 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, directing the petitioner to leave the territorial limits of District Dhamtari and its adjoining districts within 24 hours and restraining his entry therein for a period of one year. It is contended that the said order proceeds on the premise that the petitioner is a habitual offender creating fear in the locality. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act within the prescribed period, contending that the externment order was illegal, unsupported by material on record and that no case under Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6(c) of the Act was made out against him. It was further urged that there was 4 no material to demonstrate unwillingness or fear of witnesses and that the petitioner had been acquitted in all cases except one referred to in the externment proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the District Magistrate failed to conduct any meaningful inquiry, did not record statements of witnesses, denied the petitioner an opportunity of cross- examination, and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also contended that, except for Crime No. 167/2024, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and even the said case did not justify the extreme measure of externment. However, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 07.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the externment order solely on the basis of the alleged criminal history, without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the petitioner or recording any satisfaction regarding the mandatory requirement of unwillingness or fear of witnesses under Section 5(b) of the Act. 6. Upon consideration of the pleadings, this Court finds that the petitioner has not placed on record the relevant acquittal orders in respect of the cases relied upon by the authorities. In the absence of such material, the petition suffers from lack of necessary particulars. 7. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after placing the requisite documents on record. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty 5 to file a fresh petition in accordance with law. Such liberty shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs before the Registry of this Court at the time of filing the fresh petition, if any. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 9. Certified copies of the documents, if any, shall be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof for the record. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan