Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Seeking quashment of the order of the appellate authority/State of Chhattisgarh dated 2-11-2016 affirming the order of externment dated 24-6-2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Durg, this instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

2. Essential facts leading to passing of the order of externment duly affirmed by the appellate authority are as under:-

2.1 The Superintendent of Police, Durg, submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Durg, under Section 5 (a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short, 'the Act of 1990') and on that basis, a case was registered under Section 5 (a) and (b) of the Act of 1990, and the petitioner was served with a show cause notice stating that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the IPC and in the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property and, therefore, why the order of externment be not passed against him to remove him outside the district or any part thereof.

2.2 The petitioner filed his reply opposing the show cause notice and said that no case is made out for his externment from the district(s), the said case was registered in the year 2013 on a report dated 20-6-2013 and in the course of that enquiry, the District Magistrate examined three witnesses namely Gangaram Yadav, Head Constable; Shriram Mandavi, Head Constable; and Aditya Sharma, Police Inspector, and on the basis of that, the order of externment of the petitioner from six districts namely Durg, Rajnandgaon, Balod, Dhamtari, Raipur and Bemetara was passed.

2.3 The learned District Magistrate by its order dated 24-6-2016 directed removal of the petitioner from five districts finding that the condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 (a) and (b) of the Act of 1990, is available on record.

2.4 The petitioner preferred appeal against that order before the State Government under Section 9 of the Act of 1990 and the appellate authority/State Government by its impugned order affirmed the order of externment finding no merit in the petitioner's appeal against which this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.

3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the order of externment is based on no material available on record. Report of the Superintendent of Police was submitted to the Collector on 20- 6-2013 and after that date, there is no case registered against the petitioner in any of the provisions as required under Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990. He would further submit that in most of the cases like in S.T. No. 7/2004, Criminal Case No.278/2002 and Criminal Case No. 163/2012, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the jurisdictional criminal court. Therefore, on the basis of old pending cases, in which the petitioner has been acquitted, the order of externment could not have been passed. He would also submit that the second part of Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990 has not been satisfied and there is no evidence to hold that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner on the ground of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, only three police officers have been examined and that too the petitioner has not been permitted to cross-examine them. Only on the basis of self-serving statement, such a finding has been arrived at by the learned District Magistrate and no independent witness was examined to hold that the witnesses are not ready and willing to give evidence against the petitioner. Lastly, he woul