The Chattisgarh High Court in Taukeeir Ahmed Khan v State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. set aside an order of externment passed by a District Magistrate owing to the authority for its decision being old and stale and no live link being found between the offences and such administrative action.
The case, in brief, is that the appellant Taukeeir Ahmed Khan was restrained from entering the District of Korba and border districts for a year under the order passed by the District Magistrate in September 2021 under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The same was appealed against before the Single Bench of this High Court. The said appeal was rejected on the pretext that the safety of the general public at large would hold sway over the individual right of the petitioner as article 21 would be subject to the law of land.
Thereafter, the appellant also appealed to the State Government u/s 9 of the 1990 Adhiniyam, but the same was also rejected.
Therefore, the appellant moved the Ld. Division Bench seeking setting aside of the externment order. It was vehemently pleaded that the Writ Court upheld the externment order without considering the provisions of Section 8 and Section 5(b) of the Act. It was further argued that no opportunity was granted to the appellant to defend his case. The Appellant was completely unaware of the witnesses who had deposed against him and the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not afforded to the appellant.
The Court amongst other judgments referred to Deepak v/s State of Maharashtra and Others wherein it was observed that an order of externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. Relying on this principle and relating it with the facts at hand, the Court observed that the cases which were taken into consideration for passing the order, were old and stale, and there is no live link between the said offences and the order of externment was passed in the year 2021, it demonstrates that the District Magistrate had relied upon old and stale cases, as the last case registered against him was in May,2021.
It further added that “From the aforesaid propositions of law, it is evident that the order of externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in an extraordinary circumstance. By passing an order of externment fundamental right of a person of free movement throughout the territory of India is curtailed and, therefore, it must withstand the test of reasonableness. The order of externment should be sparingly used.”
It was also observed that proper facts were not placed before the competent authority and satisfaction recorded by the officer cannot be said to be proper. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, without collecting the facts of acquittal of the appellant, in a very casual manner, was made the basis for initiating the externment proceeding, and Section 8 of the Act requires the Magistrate to inform that person in writing 'of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding those allegations but the impugned order of externment was passed without due notice.