[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Om Prakash Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10170-DB
Digitally signed
SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.28
10:13:37 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 118 of 2026
1 - Om Prakash Baghel S/o Dwarpal Baghel Aged About 40 Years Village Darripar,
Police Station Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector/ District Magistrate Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
3 - Superintendent Of Police, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
4 - Sub Divisional Officer Police Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
5 - Station House Officer Police Station Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
27/02/2026
1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the State/respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
relief(s):-
"10.1 To call for records pertaining to the case of
the petitioner.
10.2 To quash the externment proceeding started
against the petitioner vide Order dated 02.02.2026
by Respondent No. 2 (Case No.
202602220600001) and kindly quash the Show
Cause Notice Dated 02.02.2026 issued against the
petitioner (Annexure-P/1 and P/2).
10.3 To pass any other orders that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, the Petitioner is a law-
abiding citizen and worshipper at Ma Bhagwati Ashram in Village
Darripar, Police Station Fingeshwar, and President of Gramin Vikash
Samity, Fingeshwar, has been actively involved in social and political
activities in the village. Owing to political rivalry, certain false and
motivated allegations were made against him, pursuant to which the
Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, recommended initiation of
proceedings under Sections 3 and 5 of the State Security Act, 1990.
Accordingly, a case bearing No. 202510220600010 was registered on
15.10.2025 and a show cause notice was issued; however, after
considering the Petitioner's reply, the District Magistrate closed the
externment proceedings vide order dated 15.12.2025. Thereafter, on
the basis of the same earlier allegations, the Superintendent of Police
again addressed a letter dated 27.12.2025, leading to registration of
Case No. 202602220600001 and issuance of a fresh Show Cause
Notice and order dated 02.02.2026 by Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by
the repeated initiation of externment proceedings despite closure of the
earlier case and absence of any substantive offence, the Petitioner has
preferred the present Petition seeking quashment of the impugned
order and notice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
initiation of externment proceedings and issuance of Show Cause
Notice dated 02.02.2026 under Sections 3 and 5 of the State Security
Act, 1990 are wholly arbitrary, mechanical and violative of Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the Respondent Authorities
have acted without application of mind and without recording the
requisite subjective satisfaction mandated under law. The proceedings
have been re-initiated on the very same allegations which were earlier
considered and closed by the Learned District Magistrate on
15.12.2025, thereby demonstrating mala fide intent and abuse of
process. The impugned order merely reproduces vague expressions
such as "law and order" and "public security" without disclosing any
material to establish disturbance of public order or likelihood of future
prejudicial conduct, nor does it record that witnesses are unwilling to
depose as required under Section 5 of the Act. The allegations relied
upon are politically motivated, unsubstantiated and in several instances
have resulted in acquittal, and thus cannot form the basis for invoking
preventive provisions. The entire action reflects non-application of
mind, absence of cogent material, and colourable exercise of power,
warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that The Respondents most
respectfully submit that the initiation of externment proceedings and
issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2026 under Sections 3
and 5 of the State Security Act, 1990 are lawful, justified and in strict
compliance with the procedure established by law. The District
Magistrate has acted upon credible material placed by the
Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, and has duly recorded the
requisite subjective satisfaction that the activities of the Petitioner are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public security. The
action is preventive in nature and does not depend upon conviction in
criminal cases, but upon the likelihood of disturbance to the even
tempo of community life. The earlier closure of proceedings does not
bar fresh action where subsequent material and continued conduct
warrant reconsideration. The impugned notice affords full opportunity to
the Petitioner to submit his explanation, thereby complying with
principles of natural justice. Hence, the proceedings are neither
arbitrary nor mala fide, but are bona fide exercises of statutory power
in the larger interest of maintaining public peace and order.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
carefully perused the records placed along with the writ petition.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Show
Cause Notice dated 02.02.2026 has been issued strictly in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the State Security Act, 1990,
after due consideration of relevant material and upon the subjective
satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the necessity of
preventive action for maintenance of public order. The notice merely
calls upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation and does not, at this
stage, infringe any vested right, as adequate opportunity of hearing has
been afforded in compliance with principles of natural justice. The
Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of submitting his reply
and participating in the proceedings before the District Magistrate.
Hence, no interference is warranted by this Hon'ble Court at the
preliminary stage, and the Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine
and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika
