Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:41767-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 454 of 2025 Hemendra Singh S/o Satam Singh Rajput Aged About 26 Years R/o Rampur, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Magistrate Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Station House Officer P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 2 19.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling for the relevant records from the concerned authorities/Court below relating to the Petitioners' case for its kind perusal. b. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Appellate authority/Respondent no.2, in the interest of justice. C. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the externment order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Respondent no.3, in the interest of justice. d. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. e. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an externment order dated 14.02.2025 was passed by the District Magistrate, Dhamtari (respondent No. 3) against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed on 27.06.2025, thereby confirming the order of externment for a period of one year. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, as is evident from the order-sheet dated 24.01.2025. The said order-sheet records that the evidence of witnesses namely PW-7 and PW-9 were taken on that date, but also notes that the District Magistrate was not present in Court and was engaged in some administrative work, and the matter was adjourned to 31.01.2025. Thereafter, externment order dated 14.02.2025 was passed by the District Magistrate, Dhamtari (respondent No. 3) against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed on 27.06.2025, thereby confirming the order of externment for a period of one year. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts situation, this Court, vide order dated 08.08.2025, directed the ofÏcer concerned to file his personal afÏdavit in the matter. 5. Learned State counsel submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 08.08.2025, an afÏdavit has been filed by the Collector, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, relevant para of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “a. That, he has joined the post of Collector, District Dhamtari on 06/03/2025 on transfer. It is submitted that the impugned order of externment has been passed by his predecessor on 14/02/2025. His predecessor was relieved from the ofÏce on 05/03/2025 pursuant to the order dated 31/01/2025 issued by the Government of India thereby appointing her as Deputy Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat. 4 b. That, the day for judicial proceedings was fixed by the then Presiding OfÏcer on Monday and Friday commencing from 3 PM onwards. The case of the petitioner was taken up for hearing on 24/01/2025 in the second half of the day. c. That, on 24/01/2025 the judicial proceedings were stated from 3 PM. The petitioner himself duly participated in the said proceedings. Both the witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-9 were present. During the course of proceedings, there was urgency requiring presence of the then Presiding OfÏcer in another matter and therefore, the then Presiding OfÏcer had to leave the proceedings in the midway and after relieving from the said urgent works, the statements of witnesses i.e. PW- 7 and PW-9 were duly certified by the then Presiding OfÏcer after verifying both the witnesses and their was adjourned to statements and the case 31/01/2025 for further hearing. d. It is submitted that on 31/01/2025 the matter was again taken up for hearing and during the course of proceedings, time for arguments was sought by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by submitting application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed and the case was fixed for 07/02/2025. Copy of the application dated 31/01/2025 is being filed herewith as Annexure A/1. On 07/02/2025 the arguments advanced by the parties were heard and thereafter, the impugned order of externment was passed on 14/02/2025. From the aforesaid it would be evident that during the course of proceedings, proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the then Presiding OfÏcer. The petitioner had all opportunity during the course of entire proceedings to make prayer for cross 5 examination of the prosecution witnesses, but, no such prayer was ever made by the petitioner himself. e. It is submitted that on 24/01/2025 the then Presiding OfÏcer was engaged in another administrative works like preparation of Republic Day and local elections of urban local bodies and rural local bodies and the then Presiding OfÏcer being the District Election OfÏcer, had to monitor the affairs of the said local elections time to time and other administrative works, apart from the judicial proceedings. f. That, with regard to the interpolation in the statement of PW-7 and undated statement of PW- 9, the deponent respectfully further submits that statements of both the witnesses were recorded on 24/01/2025 which were duly certified by the then Presiding OfÏcer after verifying the said witnesses and their statements respectively. However, inadvertently the date on the statement of PW-9 could not be mentioned and further, as there was typing error in recording the date in the statement of PW-7, therefore, the same has been rectified. Thus, it appears that there was bonafide mistake which could not be termed as intentional one in any manner, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. g. That, the aforesaid afÏdavit is being prepared based upon the report taken from the then Reader of the then Presiding OfÏcer. Copy of the report of the then Reader is being filed herewith as Annexure A/2. h. That, the deponent respectfully submits that he has the highest regards and great respect to the lawful authority of this Hon'ble Court as well as the orders and directions issued from time to time and is duty bound to abide by and adhere to the orders of this Hon'ble Court.” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid contents of the afÏdavit goes to show that 6 on 24.01.2025, when the matter was being heard, the Presiding OfÏcer was absent from the Court, having left for administrative work while the case was being heard and witnesses PW-7 and PW-9 were being examined by the Reader of the Presiding OfÏcer. Although the Presiding OfÏcer later certified the statements after verifying them, errors were noted, including an unmentioned date for PW-9's statement and an incorrect date for PW-7's statement. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the Presiding OfÏcer concerned is unacceptable and inexcusable as no evidence of the witnesses could have been recorded in absence of the Presiding OfÏcer and that too, by the Reader. As such, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2025 and 14.02.2025 are liable to be and hereby quashed. The District Magistrate concerned shall rehear the matter afresh and thereafter pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of one month from today. 8. In the result, the petition stands allowed with the above observations/directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet