1 CGHC010230552026 2026:CGHC:27614-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 363 of 2026 Eshwar Gond S/o Santram Gond Aged About 54 Years R/o Semra, Bhaisamunda, Sabriya - Dera, P.S. - Gidhori Tundra, District- Baloda- Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, District- Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Suprintendent Of Police, Baloda-Bazar, District- Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.07 11:05:59 +0530 2 heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. In the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction modifying the impugned orders dated 25-11-2025 and 22-09-2025. Specifically, it is prayed that the one-year Externment Period be Reduced to 8 months and 25 days which is already served by the petitioner and thereby granting the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to reform himself. II. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by Respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, through memo dated 27.06.2025 proposing action under Section 3(5)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 on the basis of alleged criminal antecedents. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.2/Collector issued notice dated 30.07.2025, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with certified copies of judgments of acquittal passed in the criminal cases relied upon by the authorities. Ignoring the petitioner’s defence and the acquittal orders, respondent No.2 passed the externment order dated 3 22.09.2025 directing the petitioner’s removal from District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara and adjoining districts. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Act before Respondent No.1/State Government (Appeal No. F-4-199/Home-C/2025), along with the requisite application and affidavit (Annexure P/6), but the same was also dismissed by order dated 25.11.2025 without proper appreciation of the material on record, particularly the fact that the alleged criminal cases pertained to the period between 2013 and 2018 and did not establish that the petitioner was a threat to public order or the safety of any person. It is submitted that the mandatory requirements of Section 5(3) of the Act, requiring objective satisfaction that externment was necessary to prevent prejudicial activities, were not fulfilled, and the impugned orders have been passed mechanically, arbitrarily and with mala fide exercise of power, causing grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has prefrred the present petition seeking quashment of the impugned orders dated 22.09.2025 and 25.11.2025. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in law as the petitioner has already challenged the very same impugned orders before this Court, and the earlier writ petition bearing WPCR No. 3/2026 stood dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2026. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same cause of action by filing a successive writ petition challenging the same 4 orders, which is barred by the principles governing maintainability of successive proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings made in this petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier challenged the very same impugned orders before this Court by filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed. The present petition seeks to assail the same orders on substantially identical grounds. In the absence of any subsequent cause of action or change in circumstances, a second writ petition challenging the same orders is not maintainable. Permitting the petitioner to re-agitate the same issue would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable and stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet