Supreme Court: Externment order passed ex parte without hearing

The case concerns an appeal by Vijay Kumar Rajpoot against an order of externment passed by the District Magistrate of Raigarh, which directed him to leave the district and contiguous areas for one year. The core issue is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and relegating him to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, despite the externment order being passed ex parte without notice or hearing.

Appellant: Vijay Kumar Rajpoot (alias Vijju); Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

• The Supreme Court noted that the impugned externment order was passed ex parte without prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who was in judicial custody at the time.
• The Court observed that one of the foundational FIRs (Crime No. 117/2023) for the externment had been quashed by the High Court.
• The Court noted that the appellant was enlarged on bail in the remaining FIR (Crime No. 483/2025).
• The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, specifically Sections 5 and 8, which mandate a hearing before passing an externment order.
• The document provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order, relief granted, or next date.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document