2026:CGHC:4570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 51 of 2026 Ritik Banjare S/o Tulsi Ram Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o Rawan, Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. Through Father - In- Law Aajuram Ratnakar, Aged About 49 Years, S/o Rajauram Ratnakar, Ward No.11, Chhuiha Malgujari, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms Mamta Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.01.2026 Heard Ms Mamta Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SS Baghel, GA appearing for the respondent/State. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.01.30 19:11:27 +0530 Wpcr 51 of 2026 2 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent-1, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Chhattisgaarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam 1990’) has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of case. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 in Appeal Case No.F-4-261/Home-C/2025 Register No.878. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner, may also be granted.” 3. The subject matter in brief is that against the petitioner, an order of externment under Section 3 and 5b of the Adhiniyam 1990 was passed on 19.09.2025 by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar, Bhatapara in Criminal Case No.202504210100032 for a period one year from the date of service of the order upon the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order before respondent-1 by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam 1990 on 28.11.2025, bearing registration No.F-4-261/Home- C/2025 Register No.878, filed on 04.12.2025. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 was also filed by the petitioner stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Said Wpcr 51 of 2026 3 appeal was decided by respondent-1 vide order of impugned, rejecting the application for delay filed under the Limitation Act, and consequently, appeal was also dismissed, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Along with the appeal, petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for delay that petitioner came to know about the order only on 06.10.2025, and then, on 07.10.2025, he made an application for supply of certified copy of order which could be supplied to him on 14.10.2025, and then, he handed over the same to learned counsel for filing of the appeal on 18.11.2025. Thereafter, appeal has been filed. She would further submit that dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation would prejudice the value and legal rights of the petitioner, and he is ordered to remain away from the territory of District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Bilaspur, Raipur, Raigarh, Mahasamund, Mungeli, Janjgir-Champa, Bemetara, Sakti, and Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for one year. Petitioner is having his family at Balodabazar, and it would be very difficult for him to manage the family affairs during the period of externment. Petitioner has duly explained the reasons for delay in filing an application but the same has not been considered properly. The delay has to be considered liberally but in the present case, application has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Therefore, Wpcr 51 of 2026 4 petition may be allowed, and the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and would submit that from the order dated 23.12.2025, it transpires that it is not dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, but it has been dismissed on the other grounds also. It has been observed in the order that appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, the certified copy of order dated 10.09.2025 has not been filed along with the appeal memo, and the appeal has been filed through Aajuram Ratnakar supported by an affidavit but there is no document, which shows that the said person was authorized by the petitioner to file appeal. Therefore, all these discrepancies have not been explained by the petitioner, and the learned counsel for respondent-1 has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that order of externment has been passed against the petitioner on 19.09.2025 by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar, Bhatapara, which was challenged before respondent-1. The remedy of appeal is provided under the Adhiniyam 1990, and Section 9 is relevant provision for filing of the appeal, which reads as under: Wpcr 51 of 2026 5 Section 9. Appeal — (1)Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 3, 4, 5 or 6 made by the District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered under Section 13 may appeal to the State Government within thirty days from the date of such order. Such appeal shall be decided as far as possible within a period of four months of the date of filing of the appeal. (2)An appeal under this section shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order appealed against, and shall be accompanied by a certified copy thereof. (3)On receipt of such appeal, the State Government may after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to be heard either personally or by a legal practitioner and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary confirm, vary or rescind the order appealed against : Provided that the order appealed against shall remain in operation pending the disposal of the appeal, unless the State Government otherwise directs. (4)In calculating the period of thirty days provided for an appeal under this Section, the time taken for granting a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. Wpcr 51 of 2026 6 8. Section 9(2) of the Adhiniyam 1990 clearly provides that appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order, whereas, respondent-1 has observed in its order dated 23.12.2025 that appeal has not been filed along with certified copy of the impugned order, which is mandatory condition of filing of the appeal is required in Section 9 of the Adhiniyam 1990. Further, Section 9(1) of the Adhiniyam 1990 provides that such an appeal may be filed within 30 days from the date of that order, and as per Section 9(4) of the Adhiniyam 1990, in calculating the period of 30 days provided for an appeal, time taken for granting a certified copy of the order of appeal shall be excluded. 9. In the present case, when certified copy of the impugned order has not been annexed with the appeal memo, the benefit for condonation of delay, or filing of the appeal beyond the period of 30 days or thereafter, cannot be taken by the petitioner. 10. From perusal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, petitioner filed before respondent-1 along with the appeal, it transpires that he handed over the certified copy to his counsel on 18.11.2025 for filing of the appeal. But for the reasons best known to them, the certified copy has not been annexed with the appeal memo, and there is no explanation for not filing of the same. Further, from perusal of the cause- title of the appeal memo, it was filed before respondent-1 it transpires that appeal was filed through one Aajuram Ratnakar, and from details of the petitioner, as well as Aajuram Ratnakar, it appears that he is not the Wpcr 51 of 2026 7 family member of the petitioner. There is no document with respect to authorization filed by the petitioner in favour of Aajuram except the self served statement of Aajuram in his affidavit filed in support of the appeal memo. 11. From perusal of the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by respondent-1, as well as the relevant provisions of Adhiniyam 1990, we do not find any scope for interference in the impugned order by which the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 12. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma