Chattisgarh High Court
Pukram Barman vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:15421-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 157 of 2025
1 - Pukram Barman S/o Shri Madan Lal Barman Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village- Dhangaon, Police Station- Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary/ Additional
Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan
Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Additional Secretary,
Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil
And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The District Magistrate Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
4 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
5 - The Deputy Superintendent Of Police Janjgir, Civil And Revenue
District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
6 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Pamgarh, Civil And
Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02/04/2025
1. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary of the State in
compliance of the Court's order dated 20.03.2025. A query which has
been made from the Chief Secretary by this Court on 20.03.2025 has
not been answered and the learned Advocate General states that the
preventive action which has been repeatedly taken against the
petitioner was not enough to curtail his anti social activities upon
maintaining public tranquility but it is little bit disturbing for the Court to
know if a person who does not want to abide by the rule of law, the
State appears to be helpless in that regard. We hope and trust that the
State should formulate some strict measures so that a preventive action
taken against the person if he does not abide by the first preventive
action taken, the repeated action should be dealt in a strict manner by
enacting a suitable law.
Let the matter be heard on merits.
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 the entire record from the
respondent authorities pertinent to petitioner's
exiled case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High
Court.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash/set aside the order dated
17.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent
No.1/the Additional Principal Secretary, Department
of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New
Raipur, Civil and Revenue District-Raipur (CG) in
Apeal No. F-4-272/x`g &lh/2024 whereby the
petitioner's Appeal/application filed under Section 9
fo the Chhattisgarh State Security Act,1990 has
been rejected on the ground of delay and may also
be directed to hear the petitioner's
appeal/application on its merit and thereafter pass
fresh order.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash/set aside the order dated
10.09.2024 (annexure P-8) passed by respondent
No.3/The District Magistrate Janjgir, district Janjgir-
Champa (CG) whereby the petitioner had ordered
to exile from District Janjgir-Champa as well as its
nearby districts Sakti, Raigarh, Korba, Bilaspur,
Baloda Bazar for the period of one year.
10.4 any other relief which may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2022, respondent No.6-
Station House Office, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa
had sent a letter to the respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police
Janjgir with reference of the respondent No.5 for initiation of
proceedings against the petitioner for externment from a District or
specific zone (Jila Badar) and had enclosed the list of crimes registered
against the petitioner from the year 2006 to 2002. Thereafter, on
21.09.2024, the respondent No.4 submitted the relevant documents
before the District Magistrate Janjgir-Champa and gave consent to
initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 3 & 5 of the
Chhattisgarh State Security Act,1990 for externment. The District
Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa had issued Show Cause Notice on
31.10.2022 to the petitioner and directed to submit his reply by
28.11.2022 and the petitioner appeared through his counsel before
District Magistrate wherein he has denied the allegations against him
and that he has been acquitted in most of the cases.
4. After the reply was submitted by the petitioner, the District
Magistrate initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section
3 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990 and final order was
passed on 10.09.2024 whereby the petitioner was externed from District
Janjgir-Champa as well as the nearby districts Sakti, Raigarh, Korba,
Bilaspur, Baloda Bazar for a period of one year.
5. The externment order which was passed against the petitioner by
the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa on 10.09.2024 by which the
applicant has been externed for a period of one year by the District
Magistrate considering his previous antecedents which were 24 in
number, out of which 10 cases were under the Indian Penal Code and
14 cases were under the Preventive measures, action was taken
against him and against the order of the District Magistrate, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the State which was beyond time
under Section 9 of the State Security Act, 1990 and the State
government has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay of 85 days
in filing the same and it was not decided on merits, hence the present
petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer would support the
impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and the material available on record.
8. As the statutory period has been given in Section 9 of the State
Security Act, 1990 for preferring an appeal against the order of
externment and the said statutory period cannot be extended by this
Court also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Patel Brothers Vs. State of Assam and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 350:
(2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 658:(2017) 391 ITR 244:(2017) 43 GSTR 83:
(2017) 98 VST 1: 2017 SCC Online, wherein it has been observed as
under:
"22. The High Court has rightly pointed out the well
settled principles of law that : (Patel Bros. Vs.State of
Assam 2016 SCC Online Gau 124)
"19. ....'the courts cannot interpret a statute the
way they have developed the common law "which in a
constitutional sense means judicially developed equity."
In abrogating or modifying a rule of the common law
thecourts exercise "the same power of creation that
built up the common law through its existence by the
Judges of the past." The court can exercise no such
power in respect of statutes. Therefore, in the task of
interpreting and applying a statute, Judges have to be
conscious that in the end the statute is the master not
the servant of the judgment and no Judge
9. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY 2025.04.04
16:55:45
+0530
