Externment orders require objective justification and cannot be based solely on pending charges without convictions, emphasizing the right to liberty under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Order on Board

Per Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge

07/05/2025

1. Heard Mr. Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel along with Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State.

2. 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 pertaining to the case of the Petitioners from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 03.04.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) arising out of order dated 12.12.2024 (ANNEXURE P/2), in the interest of Justice.

10.3 Any, other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice be awarded to the petitioner.”

3. The backdrop of the case is that, on 11.09.2024, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.3-under section 8 of the CG State Security Act to the petitioner to explain the reason why he should not be externed from the district of balodabazar- bhatapara & surrounding 9 districts considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in illegal sale of liquor in Gandhi Ward Bhatapara & there is no Change in his behaviour due to which there is a threat to common public & peace of that area. Also, there are 6 criminal cases registered against the petitioner & 3 prohibitory measures have been taken against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner submitted its reply before the respondent no.3 stating that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family having survived by his wife, 2 children, mother & is a labour & has not involved in any criminal activity which hampers the peace of the area or which brings fear among the common people. The 2 cases which was included was recorded in the name of one Pappu dewangan as Crime No. 308/2023 & 501/2023 not Pintu Dewangan. The petitioner has not been convicted in any case & 2 cases, where the petitioner has been falsely convicted are pending before the Ld. Court below as Crime No. 236/2024 under section 34(1) of Excise Act & Crime No. 370/2024 under section 34(2) of Excise Act, which was fixed for evidence for evidence on 28.04.2025 & other was fixed for framing of charge on 06.05.2025 respectively. Also, no other cases are pending before any court of law.

5. Respondent no.3, on the basis of the report dated 09.09.2024 stated that there are 4 criminal cases registered under the Excise Act of the same year & 3 prohibitory measures have been taken against the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3, 5(b) of the CG State Security Act has passed an externment order of the petitioner from the district of Balodabazar- Bhatapara & surroundings 9 districts including Bilaspur, Mungeli, Bemetara, Janjgir-Champa, Raipur, Raigarh, Mahasamund, Sakti & Sarangarh-Billaigarh vide its order dated 12.12.2024, in view of maintaining public peace & security & as a prohibitory measure to control the criminal activities of the petitioner.

6. Against the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.3, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the state security act before the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no.1 vide its impugned order dated 03.04.2025, affirmed the order of externment of the petitioner by dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner stating that there are 6 criminal cases registered against the petitioner between the year 2023-2024 & 3 prohibitory measures were also taken against the petitioner & in exercise of the powers conferred under section 5(b) of the CG state security act & considering the documents & evidences available on record, affirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2. Hence this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that that despite there is clear finding as per paragraph 12 of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority that the six offences considered by the District Magistrate f