DR. DUSHYANT KHOSLA vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:26052-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 339 of 2026
Dr. Dushyant Khosla S/o Late Shri H.K. Khosla Aged About 48 Years
R/o Ward No.01 Near Union Bank, Ahirwara, Tehsil Ahirwara, District -
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Home (C-Section), Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava
Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector Durg, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Superintendent of Police, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, Durg,
District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kumar Tiwari, Pramanshu sharma
and Ms. Shraddha Raj Jyotishi, Advocate
For State/
: Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General
Respondents
Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Order on Board
Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
. 06 25 .202 6
1. Heard Mr. Sandip Kumar Tiwari, Pramanshu sharma and Ms.
Shraddha Raj Jyotishi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the respondents/State.

2
2. The present petition is directed against the two subsequent
impugned orders, namely the externment (Jilabadar) order dated
08.01.2026, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No. 2 in Case
No. 13/2025 under Section 5(b) of the State Security Act, 1990,
on the recommendation of respondent No.3, whereby the
petitioner has been externed from District Durg and adjoining
districts for a period of one year, and against the order of
dismissal of Appeal by Department of Home vide order dated
07.05.2026, Annexure P-1, seeking following reliefs :-
“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set aside the impugned order of externment
Jilabadar issued by Respondent No.2, dated
08.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed in Case No.
13/2025, in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set aside the impugned order of the Respondent
No.1, dismissing the Petitioner's statutory appeal in its
Order dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) in Case No.
F/4-22/Grih-C/2026, in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
permit the petitioner to reside within District Durg and
continue his medical practice till final disposal of the
petition.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the
respondents to forthwith stop any further publication,
announcement, or circulation of the impugned
externment order and issue a public clarification/
corrigendum in all newspapers where the said order
was published.

3
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly award
appropriate compensation to the petitioner for loss of
professional income and livelihood suffered during the
period 08.01.2026 to the date of stay/quashing of the
impugned orders, caused by the arbitrary, of Section 8
of the CG Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and in
illegal, and unconstitutional externment order passed
in violation breach of Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g),
and 21of the Constitution of India.
10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly award
appropriate compensation for damage to the
petitioner's professional reputation caused by the
state-sponsored publication of the impugned order
branding the petitioner as ' ' in newspapers and
बदमाश
by loudspeaker announcements, in violation of the
petitioner's right to reputation under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
10.7 That, any other relief order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of costs of the petition may be given.”
3.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 / Superintendent
of Police, Durg, filed a report dated 24.09.2025 against the
petitioner, alleging therein that Dr. Dushyant Khosla, the operator
of Sai Clinic, Ahiwara, is a habitual complainant, a notorious
troublemaker, and has received complaints of abusive behavior
towards patients at his clinic since 2010. His threats of false
accusations against people deter people from filing complaints.
The criminal is engages in crimes such as verbal abuse, threats of
murder, assault, and intimidation, and has spread terror in the

4
neighborhood. He is known for his habit of mentally harassing
prominent members of society, including employees and officials,
by filing false complaints. There is no improvement in the behavior
of this criminal. His criminal activities have polluted the social
environment. His every action is suspicious. It is absolutely
necessary to curb this evil character to ensure he remains on the
right path. Such act of the respondent has certainly had an
adverse effect on those living in a civilized society. This has
strengthened criminal mentality and criminal activities, due to
which on one hand public order and on the other hand
implementation of law and order has been obstructed. A total of
05 cases are in progress against the said doctor from the year
2010 to the year 2025, out of which 02 cases are registered under
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 03 cases are registered under
Indian Penal Code. In the year 2025, Crime No. 180/2025 under
sections 296, 302 of BNS was registered against the petitioner on
reporting of abusive language by making indecent remarks
against the saints of Jain religion and hurting religious sentiments.
On the basis of the above facts, a case was registered against
him under Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act,
1990 (for short, ‘the Act of 1990’) before the Court of District
Magistrate, Durg on 24.09.2025.
4. In the said case registered against the petitioner, a notice dated
14.11.2025 was issued against the petitioner, giving him an
opportunity to present his case. Despite service of the notice,

5
when he did not appear, a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2025
was issued against him, which was returned to the Court after
non-service. Later on again, notice was issued on 26.12.2025,
seeking petitioner’s appearance on the 01.01.2026, which was
received to the petitioner on 01.01.2026 itself at 01.00 PM and the
petitioner’s counsel was later informed that the next hearing date
is 08.01.2026. It is pertinent to mention herein that evidence of
witnesses have already been recorded prior to service of notice to
the petitioner and on 08.01.2026, without affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.2 / District Magistrate,
Durg, exercising the powers conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Act
of 1990, passed a prohibitory order expelling the petitioner from
the District Durg and the bordering districts, i.e. District Raipur,
Bemetara, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod and
Dhamtari for a period of 01 year. The said order was assailed by
filing an appeal by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 and
the respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.05.2026 has dismissed
the said appeal. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
externment order dated 08.01.2026 and the appellate order dated
07.05.2026 are liable to be set aside as the entire proceedings
have been conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice and the mandatory procedure prescribed under the
Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990. It is contended that though
notices were purportedly issued on different dates, the petitioner

6
was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of
hearing. It is further contended that the notice dated 26.12.2025
was admittedly served upon the petitioner only on 01.01.2026,
i.e., on the very date fixed for his appearance at 01.00 PM only. It
is submitted that the statements of witnesses were recorded prior
to service of notice upon the petitioner and behind his back, and
no opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine such
witnesses, file an effective reply, or produce evidence in his
defence. It is further submitted that an externment order entails
serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner's right to reside,
move freely and carry on his profession, and therefore strict
adherence to procedural safeguards was mandatory. The failure
of the authorities to provide a fair hearing vitiates the entire
proceedings.
6. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order is
based on vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations and
does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 5(b) of the
Act of 1990. The District Magistrate has mechanically relied upon
the police report and the registration of five criminal cases
between the years 2010 and 2025 without appreciating that out of
the said five cases, three cases have already been disposed of
and only two cases registered in the year 2025 are presently
pending consideration before the competent Courts. It is further
submitted that in none of the said cases the petitioner has been
convicted or sentenced till date. It is also submitted that mere

7
registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot be treated as
proof of criminal propensity so as to justify the drastic measure of
externment. The authorities have failed to record any finding that
the petitioner's activities were causing alarm, danger or harm to
the public or that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him
on account of fear or intimidation. It is also submitted that the
allegations relied upon relate at best to individual disputes and do
not disclose any disturbance of public order warranting exercise of
powers under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. The petitioner is a
medical practitioner running Sai Clinic at Ahiwara and the
direction expelling him from District Durg and six adjoining
districts for a period of one year is wholly arbitrary, excessive and
disproportionate. The appellate authority also failed to consider
these material aspects and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical
manner. Therefore, both the impugned orders suffer from non-
application of mind and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned
externment order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the District
Magistrate, Durg, as well as the appellate order dated 07.05.2026
and submit that both the authorities have acted strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Security
Act, 1990. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender
against whom criminal cases have been registered from time to
time since the year 2010 and his conduct has consistently been a
source of concern for the local administration and the public at

8
large. It is further contended that the report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Durg, reveals that the petitioner has
been involved in activities such as abusing, threatening,
intimidating and mentally harassing members of the public as well
as government officials and prominent citizens by making false
complaints. It is submitted that due to his conduct, an atmosphere
of fear and insecurity has been created in the locality, adversely
affecting public peace and tranquillity. The competent authority,
after considering the material collected during the enquiry and the
statements of witnesses, arrived at a subjective satisfaction that
the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order and that preventive action under Section 5(b) of
the Act of 1990 was necessary.
8. Learned State counsel would further submit that adequate
opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to participate in the
proceedings. Notices were issued on several occasions; however,
the petitioner failed to avail the opportunities granted to him. The
petitioner cannot now take advantage of his own conduct and
allege violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that
externment proceedings are preventive in nature and not punitive,
and therefore the authorities are not required to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. Merely because
some of the criminal cases have been disposed of or because no
conviction has yet been recorded would not dilute the relevance of
the petitioner's antecedents and continuous involvement in

9
activities detrimental to public order. It is lastly submitted that the
District Magistrate, on the basis of the material available on record
and upon due satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive
action, passed the externment order, which has thereafter been
affirmed by the appellate authority after independent
consideration. In such circumstances, the impugned orders do not
suffer from any illegality, perversity or procedural infirmity
warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned orders and materials available on record.
10. For deciding the instant petition, it would be relevant to go through
the relevant legal provisions of the Act of 1990 under which the
order of externment has been passed and which also prescribes
the proceedings for recording of satisfaction on reasonable
grounds to pass such an order are reproduced hereunder :-
“Section. 5. Removal of persons about to commit
offence. :
Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm
to person or property; or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that such person is engaged or is about to be
engaged in the commission of an offence involving
force or violence or an offence punishable under

10
Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the
abatement of any such offence, and when in the
opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not
willing to come forward to give evidence in public
against such person by reason of apprehension on
their part as regards the safety of their person or
property; or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to
result from the continued residence of an immigrant;
the District Magistrate may, by an order in writing duly
served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the
District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or
immigrant-
(a) so as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary
in order to prevent violence and alarm or the
outbreak or spread of such disease; or
(b) to remove himself outside the district or any part
thereof or such area and any district or districts or
any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route
within such time as the District Magistrate may
specify and not to enter or return to the said district or
part thereof or such area and such contiguous
districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, from
which he was directed to remove himself.
11. The record reveals that though proceedings under Section 5(b) of
the Act of 1990 were initiated against the petitioner, the
statements of witnesses were recorded prior to effective service of
notice upon him and without affording him an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings. The notice dated 26.12.2025 was

11
admittedly served upon the petitioner on 01.01.2026, the very
date fixed for his appearance only at 01.00 PM, and shortly
thereafter the impugned externment order came to be passed on
08.01.2026. The material available on record does not indicate
that the petitioner was afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut
the allegations, inspect the material relied upon by the authorities,
cross-examine witnesses, or adduce evidence in his defence.
Since an externment order entails serious civil consequences
affecting the fundamental right of a citizen to reside, move freely
and carry on his occupation, strict adherence to the principles of
natural justice and procedural safeguards is imperative.
12. The Supreme Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy.
Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 372 , while recognizing
the preventive nature of externment proceedings, emphasized
that statutory safeguards must be strictly observed. Likewise, in
Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 7 SCC 657 , the
Supreme Court reiterated that an externment order cannot be
sustained where the statutory requirements and procedural
safeguards have not been duly complied with.
13. This Court further finds that the impugned order is founded
substantially upon the registration of five criminal cases against
the petitioner between the years 2010 and 2025. However, it is
not disputed that out of the said five cases, three cases have
already stand disposed of and only two cases registered in the

12
year 2025 are pending adjudication. Significantly, the petitioner
has not been convicted or sentenced in any of the said cases till
date. Mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, in the
absence of cogent material demonstrating that the activities of the
person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm
to the community, cannot furnish a valid basis for externment. The
distinction between "law and order" and "public order" is well
settled and preventive action can be sustained only when the
material discloses a real and proximate threat to public order.
14.
In Prem Chand v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 613 , the
Supreme Court held that extraordinary preventive measures
cannot be justified on vague allegations or mere suspicion and
that the action must be founded upon objective material having a
rational nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. Similarly,
in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403 , it
was observed that preventive measures affecting personal liberty
must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.
15. In the present case, the allegations contained in the police report
are largely general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any
specific material establishing that witnesses were unwilling to
come forward in public due to fear of the petitioner or that his
activities had created such a situation as to warrant his
externment from District Durg and six adjoining districts for a
period of one year.

13
16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate is not
supported by adequate material satisfying the mandatory
requirements of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 and that the
proceedings stand vitiated on account of violation of principles of
natural justice.
17. Consequently, the externment order dated 08.01.2026 passed by
the District Magistrate, Durg, and the appellate order dated
07.05.2026 affirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is allowed . No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra