1 2026:CGHC:23200-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 286 of 2026 Mohammad Baks Ansari S/o Samid Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Kunari Dohar Para Village- Anirudhapur, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Headquarter, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range, District -Surguja(C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur -Ramanujganj, District -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Collector-Cum -District Magistrate Balrampur-Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Station House Officer Police Station Ramchandrapur District -Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 21:00:30 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10/02/2026 bearing No. Pu.Aa./Bal./Reader/Ara./70/2026 passed by the respondent No.4 and also the consequential externment proceedings initiated by the respondent No.5 pursuant thereto under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records to the proceeding of Externment against the petitioner which is pending before the respondent no.5. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 10/02/2026 bearing no.pu.Aa./Bal./Reader/ Ara./70/2026 passed by respondent no.4 (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to quash the proceeding initiated by the respondent no.5 on 25/02/2026 against petitioner for Externment of the petitioner from the borders of District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj; District- Surguja, Koriya, Jashpur, Surajpur, Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur and the districts of adjoining States which are Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh), Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh), Garhwa, Latehar and Gumla (Jharkhand). 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.5. Cost of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was elected as Member of Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur from Constituency No.12 in the Panchayat Elections, 2025, wherein he allegedly defeated one senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party. According to the petitioner, subsequent to his election, three criminal cases bearing Crime No.02/2025, Crime No.03/2025 and Crime No.54/2025 came to be registered against him at Police Station-Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. It is the case of the petitioner that all the aforesaid criminal cases are politically motivated and have been registered only with an intention to victimize him. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the aforesaid criminal antecedents, the respondent No.6 submitted a proposal/recommendation dated 10/02/2026 before the respondent No.4 for initiating externment proceedings against the petitioner and, on the 4 same date, the respondent No.4 passed an order recommending expulsion of the petitioner from District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and adjoining districts/states. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 initiated externment proceedings against the petitioner and issued show cause notice dated 27/02/2026. Challenging the aforesaid action, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that while addressing the communication to the Collector, Balrampur- Ramanujganj, the Superintendent of Police has already recorded a finding that the petitioner deserves to be externed from the district and adjoining areas and, therefore, nothing survives for independent consideration by the Collector. It has further been argued that once the authorities have already made up their mind, the subsequent externment proceedings are nothing but an empty formality and eyewash. It is also contended that the entire proceedings are actuated by political malice and vendetta. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned communication issued by the Superintendent of Police is merely a recommendation for initiation of externment proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1990 and no final order of externment has yet been passed against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the competent authority shall independently consider the material available on record as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner before taking any final decision in accordance with law. 5 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the communication issued by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj appears to be only a recommendation for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Merely because certain observations have been made therein, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the competent authority has already pre-decided the matter. 9. However, considering the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the Collector/competent authority shall consider the recommendation independently and strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced or influenced by any observation made in the recommendation/order issued by the Superintendent of Police concerned. The competent authority shall also afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any final order. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved