1 2026:CGHC:26052-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 339 of 2026 Dr. Dushyant Khosla S/o Late Shri H.K. Khosla Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No.01 Near Union Bank, Ahirwara, Tehsil Ahirwara, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (C-Section), Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Durg, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent of Police, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kumar Tiwari, Pramanshu sharma and Ms. Shraddha Raj Jyotishi, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge 25 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Sandip Kumar Tiwari, Pramanshu sharma and Ms. Shraddha Raj Jyotishi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition is directed against the two subsequent impugned orders, namely the externment (Jilabadar) order dated 08.01.2026, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 13/2025 under Section 5(b) of the State Security Act, 1990, on the recommendation of respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been externed from District Durg and adjoining districts for a period of one year, and against the order of dismissal of Appeal by Department of Home vide order dated 07.05.2026, Annexure P-1, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order of externment Jilabadar issued by Respondent No.2, dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed in Case No. 13/2025, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order of the Respondent No.1, dismissing the Petitioner's statutory appeal in its Order dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) in Case No. F/4-22/Grih-C/2026, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to permit the petitioner to reside within District Durg and continue his medical practice till final disposal of the petition. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to forthwith stop any further publication, announcement, or circulation of the impugned externment order and issue a public clarification/ corrigendum in all newspapers where the said order was published. 3 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly award appropriate compensation to the petitioner for loss of professional income and livelihood suffered during the period 08.01.2026 to the date of stay/quashing of the impugned orders, caused by the arbitrary, of Section 8 of the CG Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and in illegal, and unconstitutional externment order passed in violation breach of Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), and 21of the Constitution of India. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly award appropriate compensation for damage to the petitioner's professional reputation caused by the state-sponsored publication of the impugned order branding the petitioner as 'बदमाश' in newspapers and by loudspeaker announcements, in violation of the petitioner's right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10.7 That, any other relief order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 / Superintendent of Police, Durg, filed a report dated 24.09.2025 against the petitioner, alleging therein that Dr. Dushyant Khosla, the operator of Sai Clinic, Ahiwara, is a habitual complainant, a notorious troublemaker, and has received complaints of abusive behavior towards patients at his clinic since 2010. His threats of false accusations against people deter people from filing complaints. The criminal is engages in crimes such as verbal abuse, threats of murder, assault, and intimidation, and has spread terror in the 4 neighborhood. He is known for his habit of mentally harassing prominent members of society, including employees and officials, by filing false complaints. There is no improvement in the behavior of this criminal. His criminal activities have polluted the social environment. His every action is suspicious. It is absolutely necessary to curb this evil character to ensure he remains on the right path. Such act of the respondent has certainly had an adverse effect on those living in a civilized society. This has strengthened criminal mentality and criminal activities, due to which on one hand public order and on the other hand implementation of law and order has been obstructed. A total of 05 cases are in progress against the said doctor from the year 2010 to the year 2025, out of which 02 cases are registered under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 03 cases are registered under Indian Penal Code. In the year 2025, Crime No. 180/2025 under sections 296, 302 of BNS was registered against the petitioner on reporting of abusive language by making indecent remarks against the saints of Jain religion and hurting religious sentiments. On the basis of the above facts, a case was registered against him under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990 (for short, ‘the Act of 1990’) before the Court of District Magistrate, Durg on 24.09.2025. 4. In the said case registered against the petitioner, a notice dated 14.11.2025 was issued against the petitioner, giving him an opportunity to present his case. Despite service of the notice, 5 when he did not appear, a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2025 was issued against him, which was returned to the Court after non-service. Later on again, notice was issued on 26.12.2025, seeking petitioner’s appearance on the 01.01.2026, which was received to the petitioner on 01.01.2026 itself at 01.00 PM and the petitioner’s counsel was later informed that the next hearing date is 08.01.2026. It is pertinent to mention herein that evidence of witnesses have already been recorded prior to service of notice to the petitioner and on 08.01.2026, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.2 / District Magistrate, Durg, exercising the powers conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990, passed a prohibitory order expelling the petitioner from the District Durg and the bordering districts, i.e. District Raipur, Bemetara, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod and Dhamtari for a period of 01 year. The said order was assailed by filing an appeal by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.05.2026 has dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned externment order dated 08.01.2026 and the appellate order dated 07.05.2026 are liable to be set aside as the entire proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990. It is contended that though notices were purportedly issued on different dates, the petitioner 6 was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the notice dated 26.12.2025 was admittedly served upon the petitioner only on 01.01.2026, i.e., on the very date fixed for his appearance at 01.00 PM only. It is submitted that the statements of witnesses were recorded prior to service of notice upon the petitioner and behind his back, and no opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine such witnesses, file an effective reply, or produce evidence in his defence. It is further submitted that an externment order entails serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner's right to reside, move freely and carry on his profession, and therefore strict adherence to procedural safeguards was mandatory. The failure of the authorities to provide a fair hearing vitiates the entire proceedings. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order is based on vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations and does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. The District Magistrate has mechanically relied upon the police report and the registration of five criminal cases between the years 2010 and 2025 without appreciating that out of the said five cases, three cases have already been disposed of and only two cases registered in the year 2025 are presently pending consideration before the competent Courts. It is further submitted that in none of the said cases the petitioner has been convicted or sentenced till date. It is also submitted that mere 7 registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot be treated as proof of criminal propensity so as to justify the drastic measure of externment. The authorities have failed to record any finding that the petitioner's activities were causing alarm, danger or harm to the public or that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him on account of fear or intimidation. It is also submitted that the allegations relied upon relate at best to individual disputes and do not disclose any disturbance of public order warranting exercise of powers under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. The petitioner is a medical practitioner running Sai Clinic at Ahiwara and the direction expelling him from District Durg and six adjoining districts for a period of one year is wholly arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate. The appellate authority also failed to consider these material aspects and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner. Therefore, both the impugned orders suffer from non- application of mind and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned externment order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg, as well as the appellate order dated 07.05.2026 and submit that both the authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom criminal cases have been registered from time to time since the year 2010 and his conduct has consistently been a source of concern for the local administration and the public at 8 large. It is further contended that the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, reveals that the petitioner has been involved in activities such as abusing, threatening, intimidating and mentally harassing members of the public as well as government officials and prominent citizens by making false complaints. It is submitted that due to his conduct, an atmosphere of fear and insecurity has been created in the locality, adversely affecting public peace and tranquillity. The competent authority, after considering the material collected during the enquiry and the statements of witnesses, arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that preventive action under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 was necessary. 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that adequate opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Notices were issued on several occasions; however, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunities granted to him. The petitioner cannot now take advantage of his own conduct and allege violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that externment proceedings are preventive in nature and not punitive, and therefore the authorities are not required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. Merely because some of the criminal cases have been disposed of or because no conviction has yet been recorded would not dilute the relevance of the petitioner's antecedents and continuous involvement in 9 activities detrimental to public order. It is lastly submitted that the District Magistrate, on the basis of the material available on record and upon due satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive action, passed the externment order, which has thereafter been affirmed by the appellate authority after independent consideration. In such circumstances, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 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 10 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. 11. The record reveals that though proceedings under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 were initiated against the petitioner, the statements of witnesses were recorded prior to effective service of notice upon him and without affording him an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The notice dated 26.12.2025 was 11 admittedly served upon the petitioner on 01.01.2026, the very date fixed for his appearance only at 01.00 PM, and shortly thereafter the impugned externment order came to be passed on 08.01.2026. The material available on record does not indicate that the petitioner was afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations, inspect the material relied upon by the authorities, cross-examine witnesses, or adduce evidence in his defence. Since an externment order entails serious civil consequences affecting the fundamental right of a citizen to reside, move freely and carry on his occupation, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards is imperative. 12. The Supreme Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 372, while recognizing the preventive nature of externment proceedings, emphasized that statutory safeguards must be strictly observed. Likewise, in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 7 SCC 657, the Supreme Court reiterated that an externment order cannot be sustained where the statutory requirements and procedural safeguards have not been duly complied with. 13. This Court further finds that the impugned order is founded substantially upon the registration of five criminal cases against the petitioner between the years 2010 and 2025. However, it is not disputed that out of the said five cases, three cases have already stand disposed of and only two cases registered in the 12 year 2025 are pending adjudication. Significantly, the petitioner has not been convicted or sentenced in any of the said cases till date. Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment. The distinction between "law and order" and "public order" is well settled and preventive action can be sustained only when the material discloses a real and proximate threat to public order. 14. In Prem Chand v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 613, the Supreme Court held that extraordinary preventive measures cannot be justified on vague allegations or mere suspicion and that the action must be founded upon objective material having a rational nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403, it was observed that preventive measures affecting personal liberty must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny. 15. In the present case, the allegations contained in the police report are largely general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific material establishing that witnesses were unwilling to come forward in public due to fear of the petitioner or that his activities had created such a situation as to warrant his externment from District Durg and six adjoining districts for a period of one year. 13 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate is not supported by adequate material satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 and that the proceedings stand vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 17. Consequently, the externment order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg, and the appellate order dated 07.05.2026 affirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Chief Justice Chandra