Pukram Barman vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pukram Barman, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 17, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, rejecting his appeal against an externment order. The appeal was rejected solely on grounds of delay. The original externment order, dated September 10, 2024, was passed by the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, directing the petitioner's exile from Janjgir-Champa and nearby districts for one year. This order was based on the petitioner's criminal antecedents, including 24 cases, 10 under the Indian Penal Code and 14 under preventive measures. The petitioner's appeal to the State government was filed 85 days beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990.
Held
The Court held that it is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Patel Brothers Vs. State of Assam and Others, which observed that courts cannot interpret a statute in a way that modifies or abrogates established legal principles, emphasizing that statutes are the master and not the servant of judgments. In view of this principle, and the fact that the statutory period for preferring an appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, cannot be extended by the High Court, the petition was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the externment order itself, nor did it address the petitioner's criminal antecedents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can entertain an appeal against an externment order when the statutory appeal before the State authority has been rejected on the ground of delay, and if so, under what circumstances? (Section 9, Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990). The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected on delay without considering its merits, and sought directions to hear the appeal on merits. The State argued in support of the impugned order, implying that the rejection on delay was justified. 2. Whether the High Court can extend the statutory period for filing an appeal against an externment order, or direct the appellate authority to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits, despite the statutory period prescribed in Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990? The petitioner sought to have the externment order quashed and the appeal heard on merits. The State contended that the impugned order should be upheld.
Sections Cited
Section 9, Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order
on Board
Per
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
02/04/2025
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.
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.
3
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.
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.”
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 4 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.
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.
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.
5
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
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
In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.04.04 16:55:45 +0530
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.