TAUKEEIR AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 1. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal challenging the order dtd. 2/5/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No.78/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has repelled/rejected the challenge made by the appellant to the externment order dtd. 1/9/2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Korba under Sec. 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (Henceforth 'the Act ').

(2.) The Appellant had preferred a Writ Petition against the order dtd. 1/9/2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Korba restraining him to enter Korba city and other border districts for a period of one year, which was affirmed in Appeal by the State Government on 6/12/2021. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by observing that 'If the petitioner has to his credit the number of enlisted cases, then balancing the right of the public at large of Society to have free fearless atmosphere would be a prime factor which cannot be ignored as against the rights of the petitioner. Though it has been stated that the petitioner was acquitted of the cases, but the inception of cases against the petitioner would demonstrate the gravity of charges against him and would lead to show the activity mutated from one to other. The public at large cannot be expected to face real life drama at unexpected places time and again. The nature of acquittals in criminal cases also speaks a loud. The state has passed the order of externment considering the conduct of petitioner with an idea of reforming the society. It is obvious that serving certain problem requires multi-prolonged approach to balance the twin need i.e., the right of public at large and that of petitioner. Externment orders are passed to control anti-social elements under the State Laws, which provide for specific orders for their inter-state as well as intra-state for a certain period of time. The power for such removal has been conferred to administrative authorities, specially to District Magistrates and City Commissioners whereby liberty of an individual is put to reasonable bounds for larger good. Therefore, considering the nature of past conduct coupled with fresh report made against the petitioner, which may be a turbulence alert, the order passed by the District Magistrate and the order passed by the State for the safety of general public at large would hold the sway over the individual right of the petitioner as article 21 would be subject to the law of land. '

(3.) The Appellant had challenged the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Korba on 1/9/2021 in Criminal Case No.02/2020 in respect of proceedings under Sec. 5(b) of the Act. The Appellant thereafter filed an Appeal under Sec. 9 of the Act before the State Government, which was rejected by the State Government on 6/12/2021. The Appellant had challenged both the orders on the ground that sufficient material under Sec. 5(b) of the Act was not available before the learned District Magistrate. The cases mentioned in the report of Superintendent of Police, Korba on the basis of which impugned order was passed, were old and stale cases. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid grounds while dismissing the writ petition.