The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte externment order imposed on Vijay Kumar Rajpoot, holding that the District Magistrate’s failure to give notice and a hearing under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam rendered the order void. The judgment also clarified that the High Court erred in refusing to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing the primacy of statutory safeguards over administrative expediency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
- The appellant, Vijay Kumar Rajpoot alias Vijju, was subjected to an order of externment directing him to leave Raigarh district and adjoining districts for one year.
- The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed his writ petition and directed him to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam.
Key Facts
- 03-04-2019: Superintendent of Police, Raigarh submitted a memorandum (No. Pu.A./Raig./Reader-1/Jila Badar/04/19) recommending externment proceedings under Sections 5(a) and 5(b).
- 03-05-2019: The third respondent (District Magistrate, Raigarh) registered a case for externment (Criminal Case No. 03/2019).
- 06-10-2025: The third respondent closed the case, issuing a warning to the appellant but not an externment order.
- 03-11-2025: A fresh report (No. Pu.A./Raig./Reader-1/Jila Badar/04/2025) was submitted, prompting the third respondent to recall the closure order and issue a new externment order dated 06-10-2025.
- 04-09-2024: The High Court quashed FIR Crime No. 117/2023.
- 30-10-2025: FIR Crime No. 483/2025 was registered under multiple sections of the IPC, the SC/ST Act and the Municipal Corporation Act; the appellant was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Raigarh.
- 22-04-2026: The appellant was released on bail in the remaining FIR.
- 22-01-2026: The High Court dismissed the writ petition (WPCR No. 16 of 2026) and ordered the appellant to pursue the remedy under Section 9.
- 31-08-2026: The Supreme Court delivered the present judgment.
Procedural History
- 04-11-2025: Ex parte externment order issued by the District Magistrate.
- 06-10-2025: Closure order with warning issued.
- 03-11-2025: Fresh report leading to recall of closure order.
- 06-10-2025: Impugned externment order passed.
- 22-01-2026: High Court dismisses writ petition, directs appeal under Section 9.
- 31-08-2026: Supreme Court hears appeal and delivers judgment.
Relief Sought
- The appellant sought quashing of the externment order, restoration of his right to reside in the district, and a declaration that the High Court’s direction to pursue the statutory appeal was untenable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an externment order passed by a District Magistrate without notice and hearing, and after reopening a previously closed case, complies with Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not exhausted the statutory remedy under Section 9.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Counsel argued that the externment order violated the mandatory procedural safeguard of Section 8, which requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any order under Sections 3-6 is passed.
- It was contended that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to reopen a closed case without express statutory authority, thereby breaching the principle of audi alteram partem.
- The appellant relied on Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat to emphasize that failure to comply with statutory hearing renders an order void.
For the Respondent
- Counsel submitted that the appellant had been afforded an opportunity to be heard during the earlier closure proceedings, and that the subsequent externment was a continuation of the same proceedings, not a fresh order.
- It was argued that Section 9 provides an alternative statutory remedy, and the High Court was correct in directing the appellant to pursue that avenue.
- The respondent relied on Godrej Sarah Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer to assert that a writ court may decline jurisdiction when a specific statutory remedy is available.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by outlining the statutory scheme of the Adhiniyam. Section 5 empowers a District Magistrate to order externment on grounds of alarm, danger or imminent offence, but Section 8 makes a prior notice and hearing a condition precedent.
"The duty to give the hearing sounds in a statute which affects the fundamental right of a citizen, the failure to comply with such a duty is fatal."
The Court noted that the impugned order was passed ex parte while the appellant was in judicial custody, without any notice or opportunity to tender an explanation, directly contravening Section 8(1). It rejected the respondent’s contention that the earlier closure hearing sufficed, emphasizing that the reopening of a closed case constitutes a distinct proceeding requiring a fresh notice.
The Court examined the jurisdictional aspect, observing that the Adhiniyam contains no provision authorising a District Magistrate to review his own earlier order. Consequently, the magistrate acted beyond his statutory powers when he recalled the closure order and issued a new externment order.
Precedents were applied:
- Jittu Yadav was cited to underscore that procedural safeguards cannot be dispensed with merely because an alternative remedy exists.
- Nawabkhan Abbaskhan reinforced that non-compliance with a mandatory hearing renders an order void.
- Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar were invoked to illustrate the stringent requirements for externment under analogous statutes.
The Court further held that the High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition was erroneous. While Section 9 provides a remedial route, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred when the statutory remedy is inadequate to address a breach of natural justice. The Court referenced Godrej Sarah Lee to delineate the distinction between “entertainability” and “maintainability”.
In sum, the Court concluded that the externment order was void ab initio for non-compliance with Section 8 and for lack of jurisdiction, and that the High Court’s direction to pursue the statutory appeal was untenable.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The externment order dated 06-10-2025 is set aside as void. The High Court’s order directing the appellant to pursue the remedy under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam is quashed. The appellant is free to re-enter Raigarh district and adjoining districts. No monetary costs are awarded. The pending criminal matters remain unaffected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mandatory Notice Cannot Be Bypassed
- Practitioners must ensure that any externment proceeding includes a written notice specifying the material allegations and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Section 8.
- Failure to comply will render the order void, irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged conduct.
Jurisdictional Limits of District Magistrates
- A District Magistrate cannot reopen a closed externment case without explicit statutory authority; doing so amounts to ultra vires action.
- Counsel should scrutinise the statutory scheme before invoking powers under Sections 3-6.
Writ Jurisdiction Persists Despite Alternative Remedies
- Courts may entertain writ petitions even when a statutory appeal exists, if the statutory route does not address a breach of natural justice.
- Lawyers should not assume that the existence of Section 9 bars Article 226 relief.
Practical Takeaways
- File a detailed notice and record of hearing before seeking externment.
- Verify statutory jurisdiction before reopening any closed order.
- When challenging an externment, raise both procedural and jurisdictional grounds.
